On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:18 -0700, Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 07:56 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Ron Jensen <w...@jentronics.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >> I still support the idea common  shared directories idea for such things 
> > >> as
> > >> instruments

Hi,

What ever is discussed, decided, as someone else noted,
a full FG 'base' data checkout now takes HOURS, on a 
fast machine with good Internet connection, and even a
data update can now take 20-40 minutes, or more... I
think this is the main point, not especially about
duplications...

Suggestion: It would be good if only say a dozen 
or so aircraft were in the 'base' cvs, like those 
in the releases, thus there were four (4) repositories :-

1. SG/source,
2. FG/source,
3. FG/data (base), and the new
4. FG/aircraft...

Only 1, 2, and 3 required for the first download,
build, and running, and 4 only when additional 
aircraft were needed, desired, wanted...

This is a little like the present independent
'hangars', except this would represent the official
FG GPL 'hangar'. Naturally, all current cvs maintainers
would have access to 4:FG/aircraft, and it could perhaps
be opened to more aircraft developers, who may not need
access to 1, 2, and 3...

And so that this 4:FG/aircraft checkout, and update would
not have to be moved, or copied anywhere, this would
probably require another fgfs parameter,
in addition to --fg-root=<dir>, like say 
--fg-aircraft=<dir>, pointing to where the
4:FG/aircraft was downloaded, like we can do presently
with --fg-scenery=<dir>...

And this suggestion seems independent of whether
there is some rationalization of say certain
common instruments as David and others suggest...

But such a repository split would make it less of a
need. As Ron mentioned, I am not on about disk space,
file counts, duplications... just the time for checkout
and update each day...

Hopefully the 3:FG/data (base) would then fit on
one DVD, and the 4:FG/aircraft be a set of as many
as required...

Just a suggestion, which may have been considered
before... what could be wrong with 4 repositories?

Regards,

Geoff.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Reply via email to