Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:32:09 -0700 From: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Herve Quiroz <hq@freebsd.org>, freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How should eclipse be organized in the ports tree? Message-ID: <200508311432.10822.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20050831204000.GA10673@soaustin.net> References: <200508251303.59453.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <200508310829.03121.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20050831204000.GA10673@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 13:40, the author Mark Linimon contributed to the dialogue on- Re: How should eclipse be organized in the ports tree?: >> >First of all, a plugin's jar file is essentially its distfile, currently >> >downloaded by the ports system in ports/distfiles or its subdirectories. >> >Storing it in the ports CVS repository (in ports/eclipse/plugins), as >> >you seem to imply, would in some cases be problematic because of >> >licensing/redistribution issues (not to mention bloat). > >OK, I missed this part the first time around. I thought that you >were talking about having a way to _fetch_ all the jarfiles in the >subport -- not the jarfiles themselves. I shortcircuited that one - I was thinking of a *.jar file (call this a *collect.jar )to load the correct plugineclipse jar file which presumably would then be ports/distfiles > >The problem is that the jarfiles are large, and everyone who has a >copy of the ports collection would have to have them -- even people >who do not use eclipse. There is also the fact that, being binaries, >every time they change they would essentially be a complete new copy >in the CVS repository. Agreed that would be far too messy > >We currently do not have many (any?) binaries in the CVS repository >and it probably ought to stay that way. CVS is much more efficient >for text files. > >I would instead rather see a port that, when you update it, goes >though the latest list of jarfiles and fetches them into a single >subdirectory of ports/distfiles (e.g. ports/distfiles/eclipse-plugins/). Yep that would work >That unifies the search function without penalizing anyone who does not >wish to install the eclipse ports. This also disentangles us from >licensing problems. makes sense the key to doing it this way is to get what I have called *collect.jar files in a single directory in the ports tree! > >mcl -- 40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters. English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus. Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal after completing engineroom refit.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200508311432.10822.vizion>