Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:18:07 +0200 From: Heiner =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Strau=DF?= <heiner_ej@yahoo.de> To: FreeBSD Eclipse mailing list <freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports/133457: [PATCH] java/eclipse-webtools: update to 3.0.3 Message-ID: <1247134687.1113.6.camel@think.ip> In-Reply-To: <20090629234611.GB24986@keira.kiwi-computer.com> References: <200906290700.n5T70AQQ020741@freefall.freebsd.org> <1246272143.1356.19.camel@think.my.domain> <20090629234611.GB24986@keira.kiwi-computer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Montag, den 29.06.2009, 18:46 -0500 schrieb Rick C. Petty: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:42:23PM +0200, Heiner Strauß wrote: > > Am Montag, den 29.06.2009, 07:00 +0000 schrieb Gerhard Schmidt: > > > > > > Updates via eclipse updater are per user updates (stored in homedir of th= > > > e > > > User). The port is per Computer (stored in /usr/local). I maintain some > > > Workstations with 200+ users. > > > > > > Please keep the Port. > > > > That's a point. But someone has to keep them in sync with eclipse, > > testing and committing etc. If they are kept like now, they are adding > > more confusion and no help I think. It took me hours to find out what > > was wrong with them and how to fix :) Drop them or maintain. The actual > > webtools are 3.0.4 already. Maybe for bigger installs we could have an > > eclipse-plugin-mirror port or something, if you want a server centric > > install. > > I disagree with the OP. You can drop the user-installed plugins directly > into /usr/local/eclipse/ with a modicum of effort. You can network mount > that directory to avoid updating every machine too. In fact you can even > have multiple versions of eclipse installed and run side-by-side with a > little effort. I've played with modifications to my /usr/local/bin/eclipse > script to do just that. > > There's absolutely no reason we should have any eclipse-* ports since every > one of them is obtainable through eclipse's plugin architecture and > software updates screens. It's especially painful if there are multiple > supported eclipse versions in the ports tree. I hope that the OP's not > suggesting that we create thousands of ports, one for each of Eclipse's > 1200+ plugins times each version of Eclipse. Even if he were to volunteer > to be the maintainer for each, it seems silly to have the plugins as ports. > Although there is some precedence with p5-* ports (instead of using CPAN > exclusively). > > In fact I've had troubles with many of the fbsd ports but all of them seem > to behave when I grab them with Eclipse's updater. > > -- Rick C. Petty Can't we mark the eclipse-* ports at least as DEPRECATED ? They are confusing new Eclipse users and wasting a lot of time. Most of them haven't got a maintainer and are hopelessly outdated. Greetings, Heiner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1247134687.1113.6.camel>