From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6681913988E for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:48:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 483AD142A4; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:48:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com (mail-io0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 586AA14225 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:48:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so115646100iod.0 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:48:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=i3FcmjTVFpQf5J35kN3WsjGlt6OMfEJhqekPKazCqjA=; b=Shlvk/pGfDPCHSKP5lyRb/hHsbA/z0cIYaOvQ5CvCzak70HmGDlazScGRFQGSqLMI/ +SbEzIrnrTs0TszmmmfNp+nrjm4hi+01V0tpu1AVcgFWzJPL3sDddaRNuBZ6AeujTeVq 1+//N7GN0AihFvZ0cMtdNtrKdr/o8QKbEpDFBjkm/A8lRSYKP/ZgZ0WR9lnFC4DA/DF2 lObem/ho4+Cf4dQ91W6b7gkLWvvu3PRRBovWqKVO9AmhvXBh0ELvmyHhWsYI39mHz8PP lsjkKI8QD/OkHCADN8tT0tJezIZgF6i7XiW73xZ4Zj04uYcfjoiQyvPG+PQtzUzLwD6P KIvw== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.46.12 with SMTP id i12mr14034908ioo.17.1440287294578; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.79.103.67 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:48:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55D8DFCC.8070804@gentoo.org> References: <20150820194244.622b8f86.mgorny@gentoo.org> <55D6524C.7020201@gentoo.org> <21974.51794.830903.356097@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <55D73F52.9030402@gentoo.org> <55D77F0F.3070601@gentoo.org> <20150821220924.7b642295@symphony.aura-online.co.uk> <55D825C1.2080507@gentoo.org> <55D858BE.90902@gentoo.org> <55D8DFCC.8070804@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:48:14 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: L32tib7MxWM4kyNvh_vrxb0BGuA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] games.eclass From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 75dde2b9-9726-45a8-8739-21dd64d7e271 X-Archives-Hash: cf94c8f18f4c5ab96cd4756bd46bd2b2 On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 4:47 PM, hasufell wrote: > So my point stands. Games require their own set of policies (and ebuild > writing guidelines). I think we're somewhat talking past each other. I'm not debating that it may be beneficial for games to have some specific policies, and those should be taken as they come. However, many of the examples that are coming up don't really strike me as games-specific so much as general issues that apply often to games. Just take it one issue at a time, and think about both the tree and games when you make them. We can always revisit at the distro level if necessary. -- Rich