Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:08:22 -0700 From: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org, Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr>, freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports Message-ID: <200510180908.26798.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051018152124.GA16544@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> References: <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <200510180730.56069.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20051018152124.GA16544@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 08:21, the author Herve Quiroz contributed to the dialogue on- Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: >On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:30:52AM -0700, Vizion wrote: >> >This can be done today, with an eclipse-plugins meta-port, similar to >> >the php5-extensions one. I may even find some time to work on it. >> >> Wow >> >> That is great >> >> That is what I have been arguing for for three months!! > >Yes, but you have been arguing for /usr/ports/eclipse and >/usr/ports/eclipse/plugins which are both major changes to ports >framework whereas php5-extensions is just a port as any other in the >*existing* framework. And I remember suggesting something similar with a >plugin support using MASTERDIR months ago. > >Anyway, if this is just a matter of having the same as >lang/php5-extensions, I fully agree with the approach. Moreover, I am >glad to see that we have come to agree on some point (although I don't >know yet if people from freebsd-eclipse@ will effectively chose that >particular approach). > >Now regarding the new non-virtual category, I think this goes beyond the >scope of the freebsd-java@ team so I'll let others (freebsd-ports@ and >probably portmgr@) deal with this new issue. FWIW, I remember some >earlier discussion regarding the creation of a new category (IIRC it was >about splitting 'net' into 'net-p2p' and such) where hundreds of ports >were concerned and the discussion not only took a long time but as you >can see these new categories never hit the ports tree. So I guess >you'll have to be patient and explain your point in a much humble >fashion than what you did for this eclipse plugin framework discussion. I just lost it -- for three months I have put up with being polite in response to knee jerk reactions about "not making exceptions" and repeated demonstrations of a mindset that does not understand the implications of framework centric computing. I remember all the ineffectual battles with system focussed people back in the early 70's and was horrified that we were unabole to counter the rise of MS because the **ix community was unable to wrest control of its development cycle from engineers and determine its future policy by reference to user requirements. I see this happening again. I would argue that the powerful combination of JVM and framework centric processing will make OS choice dependent upon how easy it is for the user to control everything via an interface like eclipse. I would like to see freebsd lead the way 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?200510180908.26798.vizion>