From owner-freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 30 16:03:04 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 4C4D416A41F for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:03:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lioux@FreeBSD.org) Received: from vette.gigo.com (vette.gigo.com [216.218.228.114]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30D743D45 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:03:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lioux@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 201.24.49.97 (unknown [201.24.49.97]) by vette.gigo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B09575A for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 50370 invoked by uid 1001); 30 Aug 2005 16:00:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20050830160042.50317.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:00:20 -0300 From: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira To: "Stephane E. Potvin" References: <20050829180704.68762.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <43136B59.7090508@videotron.ca> <431382C3.3060205@ebs.gr> <43144DF3.4020706@videotron.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43144DF3.4020706@videotron.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Eclipse 3.1: no swt-pi-gtk-3138 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: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:03:04 -0000 Hi, Well, I agree that only one instance of swt should be ever lying around. Or, at least, that they not CONFLICT with one another since I need eclipse to build azureus but only swt to run it which means I would have a hell of a dependency problem otherwise. Well, for those wondering about an example. I did a crude hack to azureus to get it going. The port still needs polishing but it is good enough so that you can try any of the mentioned solutions. I, for one, would prefer that the eclipse port would extract the .so files somewhere rather than incarnating yet another port since I also need the swt*jar files which are part of eclipse. We wouldn't gain much from another port (saving run time dependencies I mean), we would require both in the end. Port sample, http://people.FreeBSD.org/~lioux/azureus.tgz Regards, -- Mario S F Ferreira - DF - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature." feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature