From owner-freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 15 05:30:05 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1900F16A41F; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:30:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A553943D48; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:30:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id B46DE2F2B; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:30:03 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:30:03 -0500 To: Wes Peters Message-ID: <20051015053003.GB28137@soaustin.net> References: <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:00:01 +0000 Cc: tux@pinguru.net, wes@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org, mitsuru@riken.jp, sugimura@jp.FreeBSD.ORG, rtdean@cytherianage.net, Norikatsu Shigemura , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "FreeBSD users of eclipse EDI, tools, rich client apps & ports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:30:05 -0000 On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:15:07PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote: > I don't mind moving the eclipse ports from java to devel, but all the > other eclipse ports are add-ins to eclipse and should probably be > classified along with eclipse. [adding freebsd-java to the Cc:] For some background, there's been on-and-off discussion on -java about how the java category was never really a good idea. None of the other languages have their own primary category. In particular we've completely failed to train our users to send 'java' PRs only for problems with the JVMs and 'ports' PRs for things in ports/java. > In particular, if eclipse is a 'devel' tool, I don't see how CDT > and phpeclipse are editors. GEF isn't a graphics library, it's a > graphical emulation framework for eclipse, which is (again) a > development tool. Well, Eclipse is one of these 'suites' that doesn't really fit well in one particular category. You could make the same argument about OpenOffice, opengroupware, ZendStudio, and so forth. (These 3 are chosen deliberately because they're scattered in 3 different categories). OpenBSD has a 'productivity' category although what it has in it is more like our 'deskutils'. Perhaps we should consider co-opting that name? (Our "deskutils" is a combination of things like calendar programs and individual GNOME add-ons, so it's a little bit of a mixed bag. However, I'm not sure I can see Eclipse fitting in with those). There is also the fact to consider that at 1624 ports, devel is simply too huge for its own good. Everything is in there including the kitchen sink. Even if we just went with an 'ide' category, there are still 27 ports that would probably fit in there. Not a lot in my book (and I've always been against anything that would lead us towards having hundreds of categories), but I could see an argument for it, even so. I'll leave the idea of completely reshuffling all the categories for another time, since everyone is probably tired of listening to my own particular views on that. mcl