From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 3 10:11:17 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548DA16A403; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:11:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from girgen@FreeBSD.org) Received: from melon.pingpong.net (melon.pingpong.net [195.178.174.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3FC043D4C; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:11:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from girgen@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost.pingpong.net [127.0.0.1]) by melon.pingpong.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC2650DF5; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:11:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from melon.pingpong.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (melon.pingpong.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 33040-01-15; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:11:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.187] (unknown [213.136.40.204]) by melon.pingpong.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D364550DC9; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:11:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:11:14 +0200 From: Palle Girgensohn To: David Sledge , Sergey Matveychuk Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <45197263.50505@appriss.com> References: <4518BED7.3050104@FreeBSD.org> <45197263.50505@appriss.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at pingpong.net Cc: Ronald Klop , freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will eclipse32 be committed before ports freeze? (pr ports/102993) X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:11:17 -0000 --On tisdag, september 26, 2006 14.33.07 -0400 David Sledge wrote: > > Sergey Matveychuk wrote: > > Ronald Klop wrote: > > > Hello, > > 10 October is the ports freeze for FreeBSD 6.2. Will the port of Eclipse > 3.2 be committed before then? > It is a new port, so I don't think it will interrupt with other ports. > > > > 1) We need a repocopy. > > > On the feedback for the PR I answered that I did not think a repocopy > was needed since almost all of the files are new with different names > for the eclipse32 port. I only kept a handful of the original files. ... I agree that we don't need a repo copy, but I would like to go one step further; we don't need two different versions of eclipse in the ports tree. There are about two dozen ports that rely on eclipse. Most of them can probably easily be upgraded to work with eclispe-3.2. I'd prefer updating the ports, and updating eclipse to 3.2. What do you think? /Palle