Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:07:59 -0500 From: "Stephane E. Potvin" <sepotvin@videotron.ca> To: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> Cc: freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Eclipse plugins ports? Message-ID: <497E262F.6060900@videotron.ca> In-Reply-To: <20090125051928.GA86858@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <20090125051928.GA86858@misty.eyesbeyond.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greg Lewis wrote: > G'day all, > > I'm looking into a problem with one of the Eclipse plugin ports and I have > to say that I wonder why we bother having plugin ports. Eclipse has good > built in plugin management tools, so the only reason I can see for having > a port for one is if there is some code that needs changes (and the only > one of those I see is eclipse-cdt). > > What are peoples thoughts on this? Who feels they get a lot of value out > of having FreeBSD ports for those plugins that we do have and why? > +1, As this is the main reason that eclipse-devel is still -devel, I wholeheartedly support removing the plugins (except those that require native libraries, like cdt). Most eclipse problems that I've received would have been avoided if people had used eclipse-devel in the first place. As for CDT 5.0, even the missing native libraries are not that critical. Some minor functionalities are not working right and the integration with the toolchain leaves much to be desired but the functionality is there and is working properly in the majority of cases. Regards, Steph (eclipse-devel maintainer hat) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl+Ji8ACgkQmdOXtTCX/nttCQCguE2QUYSg9oqOp/+5+oiNOPdO VCMAoOsnuSvHBwLu5ON4/9FpTs50AanU =HnHb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?497E262F.6060900>