From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 26 20:37:41 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org 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 5112016A41F for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:37:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glewis@eyesbeyond.com) Received: from misty.eyesbeyond.com (glewis.dsl.xmission.com [166.70.56.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A0E43D49 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:37:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glewis@eyesbeyond.com) Received: from misty.eyesbeyond.com (localhost.eyesbeyond.com [127.0.0.1]) by misty.eyesbeyond.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j7QKbcMe058775; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:37:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from glewis@eyesbeyond.com) Received: (from glewis@localhost) by misty.eyesbeyond.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j7QKbba9058774; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:37:37 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from glewis@eyesbeyond.com) X-Authentication-Warning: misty.eyesbeyond.com: glewis set sender to glewis@eyesbeyond.com using -f Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:37:37 -0600 From: Greg Lewis To: Vizion Message-ID: <20050826203737.GA58620@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <200508251303.59453.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20050826033743.GC25822@soaustin.net> <20050826050051.GA49001@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <200508261100.47550.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200508261100.47550.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Eclipse as part of the ports/java tree? [Was freebsd eclipse plugins & mailing list] X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:37:41 -0000 On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:00:47AM -0700, Vizion wrote: > I am inclined to agree that eclipse does not "belong" in ports/java. Neither > does iit belong in "devel" or "languages". I think you mean "lang" for the latter category, correct? It certainly doesn't belong there since its not a programming language. It does seem to very much belong in devel though, at least based on the Eclipse web site. Here is the first sentence I read on http://www.eclipse.org: "Eclipse is an open source community whose projects are focused on providing an extensible development platform and application frameworks for building software." Sounds like a perfect fit for the devel category. Whether each individual plugin should be in devel is a separate discussion. For example, phpeclipse probably does belong there, eclipse-viplugin probably belongs in editors. > In view of the huge number of eclipse plugins and, nore importantly, the > mushrooming significance of eclipse, to everyone including the freebsd > community, I would like to suggest we have /ports/eclipse. Here are my basic > reasons: > > 1. The huge range of significant plugins (392 last count) which are dependent > upon the the eclipse IDE. In my view, and for the good of the platform, we > need to make these available to freebsd users in a form that fits into the > freebsd ports collection. I'm not sure how thats an argument for creating a non-virtual eclipse category. Would you care to explain? > If that means changes to the ports collection schema I see no objection. The > long term interest of the platform is much more significant thn the current > ports collection schema. I think you'll see multiple objections actually :) > Here are the major categories and the number of plugins within each category: [snip] Ok, so there are a significant minority of plugins that may not go into devel, how is this a problem? > 2. That in line with current development and application thinking the > implications and practice of the eclipse EDI framework cuts right across the > current heirarchical divisions of the freebsd port tree which was itself > created when the application and development environment was founded on an > entirely different set of system and application constraints. Your initial point here would suggest that creating a virtual "eclipse" category should be considered. This is something that has been done before, so it wouldn't be outside of the status quo. > 3. We are living in a different era and the traditional divisions do not > apply to the eclipse framework. Can we not, as a platform, welcome that > change by making appropriate changes to our ports schema? See my previous comment. This is what virtual categories are for. > 4. As you can see by examining Eclipse and by careful study of eclipse and > eclipse related websites it is not just an EDI it is also a multi application > framework so it does not "belong" in anything other than its own place in the > ports tree. I don't quite follow the logic I'm sorry. Development environments belong in the "devel" category. Multi-application frameworks belong in the "devel" category. How does something which is both not belong there? > 5. I can see great potential for a number of freebsd specific eclipse plugins > (including a combined freebsd system management and help tool providing an > integrated and automated sysadmin functionalities). Vapourware is never a good argument for anything. > 6. If we do not grasp the opportunity we now have to make the changes needed > to accomodate eclipse and any similar generic combined Application/EDI > frameworks then freebsd will suffer. It will certainly not be harmed by > taking the steps necessary to incorporate into its ports collection. I disagree. We need no changes to accomodate eclipse -- its currently accomodated, albeit in a suboptimal fashion. I have suggested it be moved to a more appropriate category and conceded there _may_ (I'm not yet convinced) be a case for creating a virtual category for it. I believe that course of action would be more than sufficient. > 7. There are substantial advantages when managing an eclipse development > environment on the freebsd platform to having the plugins installed from the > ports tree rather than via individual user accounts which could lead to > individual team members loading different versions of plugins into their own > user workspace. We need to have the plugins organized in the ports tree. That > means 392 plugins - There can be no doubt that eclipse needs its own place in > the freebsd ports hierarchy as well as its own mailing list for the good of > the freebsd community. The combination of these two initiatives may attract > new devotees to freebsd and cannot do us any harm. I do not believe we will > act responsibly by leaving things as they are or failing to grasp the new > opportunities. Here is the problem. The figure of 392 plugins and the unspecified harm that will befall FreeBSD if we don't do something for eclipse is being used to propose a reorganisation of the ports tree. The reality is that we're talking about eclipse and about 20 plugin ports, out of a total of 13,000+ ports. I'm sorry, but the reality of the level of interest in eclipse amongst the FreeBSD community doesn't seem to match with the magnitude of the change you are suggesting. Please, by all means, build up that level of interest. Get some people together like the Gnome and KDE groups. Get some more plugins submitted as PRs and get them committed. Then when you've got some runs on the board start proposing eclipse as a virtual category. -- Greg Lewis Email : glewis@eyesbeyond.com Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com Information Technology FreeBSD : glewis@FreeBSD.org