Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:35:00 +0200 From: Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr> To: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> Cc: freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org, freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports Message-ID: <20051016223500.GA58676@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> In-Reply-To: <200510161343.42178.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> References: <200510161343.42178.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 01:43:41PM -0700, Vizion wrote: > 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 We already discussed this matter some time ago. And the discussion just died by itself IIRC. You keep telling us about the "290 eclipse tools" that exist all around the world but what I just see: $ ls /usr/ports/java | grep eclipse | wc -l --> 24 So we are speaking of 24 ports here. Nothing close to 290 if you ask me. Besides, you keep whining about the poor philosophy behind the whole ports framework and speaking of the closed-mind of its developers who cannot see the "pure true genious solution" that you suggested. I don't really think this will encourage people to try and understand your approach. Fine. As it was the case with the latest discussion we had on the subject, I think I'll just find another way to spend my time and energy (shooting PRs or discussing and fixing the existing framework). Herve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051016223500.GA58676>