Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:07:40 +0100 From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Ganael LAPLANCHE <ganael.laplanche@martymac.org> Subject: Re: About games/flightgear-aircrafts Message-ID: <20110922090740.GA17805@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83_Tg89c7EqX4AxSNAUCT3tQ%2BMxJp%2BSNg2jGx_1uEfaKdA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110922071857.M71817@martymac.org> <CADLo83_Tg89c7EqX4AxSNAUCT3tQ%2BMxJp%2BSNg2jGx_1uEfaKdA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:03:38AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > On 22 Sep 2011 09:11, "Ganael LAPLANCHE" <ganael.laplanche@martymac.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi list, > > > > As you may know, games/flightgear-aircrafts is *HUGE*, way too big to be > > useable and buildable correctly, and, as a maintainer, a real pain to > > update. Today, if you just need one airplane from flightgear-aircrafts, > > you would have to download 350+ airplanes and more than 2 GB of data, > > which makes no sense at all. We have to get rid of that. > > > > I am thinking of two options : > > > > 1) providing only a subset of available airplanes (i.e. *not* every > > single airplane available on the FTP servers). This would be nice, but > > requires to set up a list of the best planes to include (top 30 best > > planes ?), and that list may not be the one every single user would have > > established. > > > > 2) removing the port and consider users have to install additional > > planes *manually*. After all, those airplanes are only addons ; limiting > > the ports to flightgear + flightgear-data, which already ship with > > several airplanes, does not seem crazy to me. > > > > A third option would have been to provide the full list of available > > airplanes but only select a few of them through OPTIONS, but I'd like to > > avoid going this way : this will not simplify the port at all, it will > > only make it harder to maintain as the OPTIONS list will be huge, and > > (maybe ?) pointless for the end-user. > > > > Flightgear users, I would go for option 2), but what do *you* think ? > > > > 4) add-on ports? yes, this seems to be the case with latex, works fine. -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110922090740.GA17805>