From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 22 14:11:40 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4498C106566B for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:11:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D1E8FC12 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:11:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p8MEBdeY011660; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:11:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id p8MEBdkE011657; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:11:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:11:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Ganael LAPLANCHE In-Reply-To: <20110922071857.M71817@martymac.org> Message-ID: References: <20110922071857.M71817@martymac.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:11:39 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: About games/flightgear-aircrafts X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:11:40 -0000 On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote: > 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 ? #2 is reasonable, IMO. Other options, like breaking it up into multiple ports, would not make it easier to maintain and might be more difficult for users. (Note: "aircraft" is both singular and plural, so the port name really should be just flightgear-aircraft.)