About games/flightgear-aircrafts

[Anton Shterenlikht]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:03:38AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2011 09:11, "Ganael LAPLANCHE" <ganael.laplanche at 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