Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:44:01 -0700 From: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr>, Panagiotis Astithas <past@ebs.gr>, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports Message-ID: <200510170844.06438.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051017153024.GA23494@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> References: <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <1B8112AF-8C0E-4BA0-8D1C-DA6AD529F327@softweyr.com> <20051017153024.GA23494@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 17 October 2005 08:30, the author Herve Quiroz contributed to the dialogue on- Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: >[recipient list trimmed down] > >On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 06:55:25PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote: >> 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. > >Greg (glewis@) already suggested to create a new *virtual* category for >Eclipse ports to ease the search of a port. That could do the trick... > >Or else you may just use FreshPorts.org facilities to look for an >Eclipse plugin: > >http://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=name&method=match&query=eclipse&n >um=100&orderby=category&orderbyupdown=asc&search=Search > >Again, I don't think we should make an exception of Eclipse. All other >ports comply to the convention and for instance there is no 'apache' >non-virtual category. Regarding Apache, we are speaking of at least 116 >'mod_*' ports while there are only 24 eclipse ports. Moreover, 'apache' >is not even a virtual category. But that's probably because all 'mod_*' >ports are in the same 'www' non-virtual category. > >So my take is that either we group all Eclipse ports into the same >non-virtual category (but not a new 'eclipse' category which makes no >sense) or we scater them but tag them by having them all in the >'eclipse' virtual category. You guys just do not get it. I have spent over 45 five years in the computer industry and am fed up with technologists who think in terms of their precious systems rather than on behalf of people that use them. You do not get it that the ports systems, as currently configured, is out of date as far as the newly emerging framework centric applications model as against the traditional application centric model. e now need a category /ports/eclipse and not this ridiculous scattering arounf the system or some half hearted 'virtual' solution that gets in the way of a real framework centric solution. I am sick to death of hearing the same old appeal based on "mot making an exception" which really means "I want to bury my head in the sand" and stick to the old ways of doing things. And before anyone tells me -- yes I am angry. david > >Herve >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- 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?200510170844.06438.vizion>