Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:18:52 -0500 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd eclipse plugins & mailing list Message-ID: <20050826031852.GB25822@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <200508251303.59453.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> References: <200508251303.59453.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:03:59PM -0700, Vizion wrote: > I am wondering if there is any mileage in modifying the ports collection > to include a /ports/java/eclipseplugins/ hierarchy and giving commit > priviledges to members of this list who are willing to test eclipse > plugins and add them to the ports. In our current paradigm there is no provision for people being able to commit to only a part of the ports tree. While this is partly due to the way that we have CVS set up, it's also due to the fact that the port dependencies tend to grow in such a fashion that it is very difficult to work with a partial ports tree. That is, there is no restriction on what ports any given port can depend on, and thus the same degree of care needs to be taken in committing any given port (e.g. to keep INDEX from breaking). We have numerous places in the tree where subfunctions of particular popular ports are added and maintained (think mod_* vs apache) and I am a little skeptical that Eclipse is sufficiently different that the basic development paradigm needs to be changed. OTOH, pkgsrc uses a 'work-in- progress' staging area that is similar to what you are asking for. However, pkgsrc-wip also has to be maintained on its own, and then also creates the extra step of moving things from it into their main development tree. There are pluses and minuses. My suggestion would be for you to set up a marcuscom tinderbox for experimentation and see how it goes with that. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050826031852.GB25822>