Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:01:46 +0200 From: Petr Valenta <xvalen@atlas.cz> To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports Message-ID: <20051017170146.60b1b90b.xvalen@atlas.cz> In-Reply-To: <200510161310.18807.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> References: <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <5739E97B-7EDC-4971-9EA5-01A44688A981@softweyr.com> <43522953.6050700@ebs.gr> <200510161310.18807.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:10:12 -0700 Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday 16 October 2005 03:20, the author Panagiotis Astithas contributed > to the dialogue on- > Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: > > >Wes Peters wrote: > >> On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:39 AM, Panagiotis Astithas wrote: > >>> 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. > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>> > >>> Although I agree with everything you say here, I can't see how this > >>> is an argument against the fact that GEF and CDT most probably belong > >>> to devel. Unless I'm mistaken and you were not making one? > >> > >> I was making an argument that regardless of where eclipse migrates too, > >> all of it's little pieces should go right along with it, rather than > >> getting spread all over the ports system. > > > >Since you snipped Mark's reply in your quote, let me clarify that my > >comments above were directed to Mark and I agree with your point. > >However I'm not sure whether there has to be a strict rule that every > >eclipse-foo port should go in the same category. Perhaps the emacs > >precedent should be followed. See below. > > > >Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:14:59 +0900 (JST) > > > > > > Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org> wrote: > > >>Hi eclipse and eclipse related ports maintainers and users! > > >> Some time ago, someone suggested that eclipse and eclipse > > >> related ports should be located on proper categories. I > > >> think so. So I suggest following repocopy list. Anyone, > > >> do you have any idea? > > > > > > Oops, I missed. Eclipse is very similar to Emacs: > > > 1. IDE > > > Emacs is a one of IDE(or platform). And anyone doesn't > > > think that it is ONLY a elisp interpreter. But it is > > > a editor. So I think that it is no problem that Eclipse > > > may be categolize to editors. > > > > > > 2. Extension-able > > > Emacs has many extention modules like news reader, language > > > support, games, ... > > > > > > 3. Mode > > > Emacs has many mode for descriptions like C, Perl, Java, ... > > > > > > 4. others > > > It must be that there are other similar feature:-). > > > > > > java/eclipse -> editors/eclipse > > > java/eclipse-EPIC -> editors/eclipse-EPIC > > > java/eclipse-cdt -> editors/eclipse-cdt > > > java/eclipse-checkstyle -> devel/eclipse-checkstyle > > > java/eclipse-clay-core -> databases/eclipse-clay-core > > > java/eclipse-devel -> editors/eclipse-devel > > > java/eclipse-emf -> editors/eclipse-emf > > > java/eclipse-examples -> devel/eclipse-examples > > > java/eclipse-gef -> editors/eclipse-gef > > > java/eclipse-gef-examples -> editors/eclipse-gef-examples > > > java/eclipse-langpack -> editors/eclipse-langpack > > > java/eclipse-log4e -> editors/eclipse-log4e > > > java/eclipse-lomboz -> devel/eclipse-lomboz > > > java/eclipse-pmd -> devel/eclipse-pmd > > > java/eclipse-quantum -> databases/eclipse-quantum > > > java/eclipse-sqlexplorer -> databases/eclipse-sqlexplorer > > > java/eclipse-sysdeo-tomcat -> www/eclipse-sysdeo-tomcat > > > java/eclipse-uml -> editors/eclipse-uml > > > java/eclipse-v4all -> editors/eclipse-v4all > > > java/eclipse-vep -> editors/eclipse-vep > > > java/eclipse-vep-examples -> editors/eclipse-vep-examples > > > java/eclipse-viplugin -> editors/eclipse-viplugin > > > java/eclipseme -> devel/eclipseme > > > java/phpeclipse -> editors/phpeclipse > > > >This sounds fine, too. > Sounds crazy to me... > Scattering eclipse tools over the whole ports collections is, to my mind, a > retrograde, rather than a positive step. There are another 290 pus eclipse > tools to bring on board!! > I would continue to advocate for a single collection > david I agree, many people don't need eclipse and puting it into whole port collection is bad because there will be no way to disable fetching eclipse-* with cvsup...I think that /usr/ports/eclipse/ will be the best solution. Petr > > -- > 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. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-java@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-java-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051017170146.60b1b90b.xvalen>