Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:11:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Ganael LAPLANCHE <ganael.laplanche@martymac.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: About games/flightgear-aircrafts Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109220755260.11525@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20110922071857.M71817@martymac.org> References: <20110922071857.M71817@martymac.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1109220755260.11525>