From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 15 05:59:11 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 21A2F16A41F; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:59:11 +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 D416543D45; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:59:10 +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 951C21407881; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:59:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20051015053003.GB28137@soaustin.net> References: <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <20051015053003.GB28137@soaustin.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <8347452E-908C-4BE5-AC8F-E6378C1BF17C@softweyr.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Wes Peters Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:59:09 -0700 To: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) Cc: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-eclipse@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: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:59:11 -0000 On Oct 14, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > 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. Makes you wonder how much the rest of the ports system would be cleaned up with a 'perl' category and all those p5-something- something ports got tossed into that basket, doesn't it? >> 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? I don't know that 'productivity' really describes what these are. In particular, I'm not sure if opengroupware adds productivity or subtracts it. ;^) Ditto for eclipse, for that matter. A category name that means 'big blobs of software with lots of options' might be appropriate. > (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. devel is one of several categories that has grown useless; www is another. It's certainly worth thinking about a category that actually makes sense for these large software systems like openoffice and eclipse. > 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 > -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com