Bug 508847
| Summary: | RFC: add aircraft subpackages | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Stefan Riemens <fgfs.stefan> | ||||||
| Component: | FlightGear-data | Assignee: | Fabrice Bellet <fabrice> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||||
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |||||||
| Priority: | low | ||||||||
| Version: | 11 | CC: | fabrice, fgfs.stefan | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2010-06-28 13:23:31 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
I like the idea. I already tried to automatically create packages from the list of aircrafts zip files in the past. However, I'm a bit worried by the overall size of these new packages : 600+MB, split in 200+ packages. That's a lot for optional data, and probably too much packages for the fedora infrastructure. Maybe they could be hosted elsewhere, and hopefully automatically created, so the process would stay humanely manageable ? For packages name, I personally prefer FlightGear-aircraft-c172, because it offers more clarity about what the package is about. Well, i could of course contact flightgear upstream, to see if they could offer hosting space. As for autogenerating, I could write some php script to do that, that's not too hard at all (i know php isn't ideal for the task, but it's what i know...) Another option would be to only package the best aircraft, after discussing which that should be with upstream. Is there any guideline specifying what amounts of data are acceptable, or is this just a matter of "good judgement" from the packager? I couldn't find it googling around... Please find attached what i've come up with after an evening of hacking. It is a php script generating a working spec file. I've also attached the generated spec file. There are a couple of issues to be ironed out though: FlightGear-aircraft-NTPS.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/FlightGear/Aircraft/NTPS/Instruments/.#gear-lights.xml.1.1 I've added some code to delete all hidden files and dir, the problem is the # in the filename. Is there any way to escape that? neither a \ nor a % works... Stefan Created attachment 350652 [details]
Spec file generator (php)
Created attachment 350653 [details]
Generated spec file
(In reply to comment #2) > Well, i could of course contact flightgear upstream, to see if they could offer > hosting space. > As for autogenerating, I could write some php script to do that, that's not too > hard at all (i know php isn't ideal for the task, but it's what i know...) > > Another option would be to only package the best aircraft, after discussing > which that should be with upstream. Some aircrafts are already shipped in FlightGear-data, so maybe these "best aircrafts" could just be included to the FlightGear-data instead. Another possibility could be to modify FlightGear to make it search in some additional ~/.fgfs/Aircraft path, so the user could download some more aircrafts without root privileges, just like it currently works for the Scenery data with terrasync and the --fg-scenery option. > Is there any guideline specifying what amounts of data are acceptable, or is > this just a matter of "good judgement" from the packager? I couldn't find it > googling around... No guideline I'm aware of. This message is a reminder that Fedora 11 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 11. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '11'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 11's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 11 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Fedora 11 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-06-25. Fedora 11 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |
Description of problem: Currently, adding aircraft to FlightGear requires the user to go to flightgear.org, download some tarball, and extract to some hard-to-find system directory (which is write-protected). This is not particularly user-friendly. I'd like to create subpackages for all the extra aircraft listed on http://flightgear.org/Downloads/aircraft/ (they are all GPLv2). That way, users can simply install additional aircraft via packagekit. Please let me know if you're interested. I wonder how the packages should be called. Just FlightGear-c172? Or FlightGear-aircraft-c172? Perhaps FlightGear-data-c172? I personally like the FlightGear-c172 option, b/c it's the shortest. For the names of the aircraft, i suggest simply using the upstream name, the same goes for version-numbers. Stefan