From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 22 01:01:02 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 3D2D516A41F for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:01:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sakura.ninth-nine.com (sakura.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD3743D45 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:01:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Received: from nadesico.ninth-nine.com (nadesico.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.122]) by sakura.ninth-nine.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/NinthNine) with ESMTP id j9M10weG019847; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:00:59 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:00:58 +0900 From: Norikatsu Shigemura To: Vizion , linimon@lonesome.com Message-Id: <20051022100058.a24c54d9.nork@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200510211707.29223.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> References: <43522953.6050700@ebs.gr> <20051021223958.GA19955@soaustin.net> <20051021235950.GB15030@isis.sigpipe.cz> <200510211707.29223.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.1.3 (GTK+ 2.6.10; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (sakura.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.121]); Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:00:59 +0900 (JST) Cc: neuhauser@sigpipe.cz, freebsd-ports@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, 22 Oct 2005 01:01:02 -0000 On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:07:27 -0700 Vizion wrote: > On Friday 21 October 2005 16:59, the author Roman Neuhauser contributed to > the dialogue on- > Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: > ># linimon@lonesome.com / 2005-10-21 17:39:58 -0500: > >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 03:19:47PM -0700, Michael C. Shultz wrote: > >> > Seems like the quantity of ports available will eventually hit a plateau > >> > with the current two level directory structure. No one is afraid to > >> > update the basic OS when its needed, even when it means using an entirly > >> > different file system ( ie. UFS1 -=> 2 ), why be so scared when it > >> > comes to the ports system? > Good point > I know my opinion might be regarded as ecentric but, as I see it, the > community is spending far too much od its developmental resopurces on > advancing the operating system and far too little on bringing user interfaces > and convenience up to date. > I see it as time to slow down on OS development and really focus on bringing > the operating system management to a level that accords with comparable > modern day standards. > >> Then PLEASE SUBMIT PATCHES. Tested ones. Involving portsmon. Involving > >> the build cluster. Involving marcusom tinderbox. Involving FreshPorts. > >> Involving everything in bsd.*.mk. Involving fixing up all the > >> dependencies after all the thousands of repocopies. > > > > This is an absurd overreaction. > Agreed - Hum.. The eclipse repocopy discussion became new ports system discussion. Next time, please implement ports2/eclipse or ports/eclise. So I'll repocopy from */eclipse-* to eclipse/, too. BTW as soon as possible;-), I'll send-pr my 2nd repocopy plan (java/eclipse -> editors/eclipse), and repocopy these.