From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 21 17:22:52 2005 Return-Path: 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 5621716A4CE for ; Sat, 21 May 2005 17:22:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca (plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.186.80]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549EC43DA0 for ; Sat, 21 May 2005 17:22:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bfkorvem@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca) Received: (from bfkorvem@localhost) by plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca (8.11.7/8.11.7) id j4LHMo000601 for freebsd-java@freebsd.org; Sat, 21 May 2005 13:22:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 13:22:50 -0400 From: Benjamin Korvemaker To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050521172250.GP28718@plg2.math> References: <1116675388.23739.4.camel@klamath.syndrom23.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1116675388.23739.4.camel@klamath.syndrom23.de> X-Face: "c*(tD4>ppZ2.~$,F<81P?w)^9&*|($,^6W5}jc=M|-l)9W@HDGDesB?,VE'R|@u-W=/zi=mL?{.I[P&V9$YdV2O-RxdNkov_I_E0(.1a User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Subject: Re: Eclipse 3.1M7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 17:22:52 -0000 On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 01:36:27PM +0200, Andreas Kohn wrote: > Hi, > > there is a new milestone of Eclipse available, 3.1M7. It looks like > bigger parts of the build infrastructure have changed, and I'm thinking > about how to port it. Is anyone else working on it currently? > > Actually, I think it would be easier to stop pretending that we are > linux sometimes, and sometimes not, and instead create a bigger patchset > which will add a complete freebsd OS definition. Perhaps our goal should > even be to have freebsd added to the list of supported OS's, to reduce > further porting effort for each new Eclipse code drop. > > What do you guys think? I'd recommend the latter. From a conversation I had with an Eclipse developer, at least some of the patches already used (I don't which ones) could/should have been sent upstream. Ben