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.)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
