Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:01:21 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: portmgr-feedback@FreeBSD.org Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, linimon@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion Message-ID: <4B80E851.5000103@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <20100221073016.695E21CD39@mail.droso.net> References: <20100221073016.695E21CD39@mail.droso.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21/02/2010 08:30, linimon@FreeBSD.org wrote: > portname: java/eclipse-emf > description: Eclipse Modeling Framework > maintainer: freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org > deprecated because: This plugin can be installed from within eclipse via > the updater > expiration date: 2010-01-19 > build errors: none. > overview: http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=java&portname=eclipse-emf > > > portname: java/eclipse-gef > description: Graphical Editing Framework for the Eclipse IDE > maintainer: freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org > deprecated because: This plugin can be installed from within eclipse via > the updater > expiration date: 2010-01-19 > build errors: none. > overview: http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=java&portname=eclipse-gef It is my conviction that these updaters only exist, because Microsoft OSs come without a packaging system. I prefer to have my plugins installed once and maintained by the system administrator instead of delegating this task to each user, such multiplying disk use and work. I'm aware I could do this by running eclipse as root, but I shudder at the thought of such abominal behaviour. I'm willing to take maintainership to preserve my ideal of using one packaging system for all software. Should I write a PR? Regards -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B80E851.5000103>