Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:30:48 +0100 From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk> To: Ganael LAPLANCHE <ganael.laplanche@martymac.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: About games/flightgear-aircrafts Message-ID: <20110922133048.GA44756@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <20110922110731.M71750@martymac.org> References: <20110922071857.M71817@martymac.org> <CADLo83_Tg89c7EqX4AxSNAUCT3tQ%2BMxJp%2BSNg2jGx_1uEfaKdA@mail.gmail.com> <20110922090740.GA17805@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20110922092016.M80451@martymac.org> <20110922094347.GB17876@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20110922110731.M71750@martymac.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:35:48PM +0200, Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:43:47 +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote > > Hi Anton, > > > print/teTeX is quite old. However, it's a critical > > port for many people, and there is no easy update > > or replacement (tex-live work is ongoing, I think). > > So, rather than updating the whole of teTeX, > > hrs@ has been adding new (or newer) > > latex packages as separate "add-on" ports, e.g. > > print/latex-nomencl or print/latex-chapterfolder. > > This way, user who need newer latex features, > > can easily get them, still within the ports > > framework. Others, who only need the core of latex, > > do not need to install those add-on ports, e.g. > > textproc/docproj-jadetex. > > Thanks for this clarification. > > In my opinion, games/flightgear-aircrafts can already been considered as > an addon port : none of the aircrafts installed by this port is > mandatory to have the game run correctly. The main problem I face is > that several distfiles change regularly, and keeping a list of 350+ > aircrafts distfiles up-to-date within a single port is a real pain. The > other problem is being able to provide the distfiles for a longer time > than the official mirrors do : it would require to set up an additional > mirror to collect them all and it would require a lot of space to do so. > > So, if I understand correctly, your 4th suggestion would be to split > this huge port up into single aircraft ones ? > > If yes, the same question remains : what should be the list of selected > ports ? And if this list should be limited to, say, 30 ports, why not > provide them in a single port (which would then be a lot easier to > maintain) ? sorry, no idea. My point was just that sometimes it's easier to split a large port into a smaller core, and several add-on ports. > > Best regards, > > PS : ports@ not included in your previous answer, is it voluntary ? just forgot -- 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?20110922133048.GA44756>