Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:49:01 -0700 From: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports Message-ID: <200510170849.02045.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200510170844.06438.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> References: <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <20051017153024.GA23494@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> <200510170844.06438.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 17 October 2005 08:44, the author Vizion contributed to the dialogue on- Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: >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?200510170849.02045.vizion>