From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 17 01:55:28 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CCF616A41F; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:55:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from smtp.omnis.com (smtp.omnis.com [216.239.128.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247E943D49; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:55:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from [204.68.178.34] (cpe-66-75-60-23.san.res.rr.com [66.75.60.23]) by smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145572006885; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:55:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <43522953.6050700@ebs.gr> References: <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <20051015053003.GB28137@soaustin.net> <4350CE50.8080704@ebs.gr> <5739E97B-7EDC-4971-9EA5-01A44688A981@softweyr.com> <43522953.6050700@ebs.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <1B8112AF-8C0E-4BA0-8D1C-DA6AD529F327@softweyr.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Wes Peters Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:55:25 -0700 To: Panagiotis Astithas X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:55:22 +0000 Cc: tux@pinguru.net, wes@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org, mitsuru@riken.jp, Norikatsu Shigemura , rtdean@cytherianage.net, sugimura@jp.FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Mark Linimon , freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:55:28 -0000 On Oct 16, 2005, at 3:20 AM, Panagiotis Astithas wrote: > Wes Peters wrote: > >> On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:39 AM, Panagiotis Astithas wrote: >>> >>> Although I agree with everything you say here, I can't see how >>> this is an argument against the fact that GEF and CDT most >>> probably belong to devel. Unless I'm mistaken and you were not >>> making one? >>> >> I was making an argument that regardless of where eclipse >> migrates too, all of it's little pieces should go right along >> with it, rather than getting spread all over the ports system. > > Since you snipped Mark's reply in your quote, let me clarify that > my comments above were directed to Mark and I agree with your > point. However I'm not sure whether there has to be a strict rule > that every eclipse-foo port should go in the same category. Perhaps > the emacs precedent should be followed. See below. That's exactly the point I was (and am) trying to argue against. I have to resort to 'make search' to find emacs tools these days because they've been thrown all over the ports system by well-meaning but misguided contributors, and I'd hate to see that happen to eclipse tools too. As to devel vs. editors, eclipse is hardly a text editor. Emacs at least started that way. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com