From owner-freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 31 02:31:34 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB3F16A421; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:31:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com) Received: from lakecmmtao04.coxmail.com (lakecmmtao04.coxmail.com [68.99.120.78]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A21443D55; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:31:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com) Received: from dns1 ([64.58.171.82]) by lakecmmtao04.coxmail.com (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20050831023132.SMFK3947.lakecmmtao04.coxmail.com@dns1>; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:31:32 -0400 From: Vizion To: Mark Linimon Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:27:30 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200508251303.59453.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20050830212342.GA32240@soaustin.net> <200508301615.53251.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200508301615.53251.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508301927.31549.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> Cc: Herve Quiroz , freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How should eclipse be organized in the ports tree? X-BeenThere: freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "FreeBSD users of eclipse EDI, tools, rich client apps & ports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:31:34 -0000 On Tuesday 30 August 2005 16:15, the author Vizion contributed to the dialogue on- Re: How should eclipse be organized in the ports tree?: >On Tuesday 30 August 2005 14:23, the author Mark Linimon contributed to the >dialogue on- > Re: Eclipse as part of the ports/java tree? [Was freebsd eclipse plugins & >mailing list]: >BTW I have switched subject to the thread for the freebsd-eclipse maillist > and cc'd you and Herve. I want to respect those who are on the official > freebsd-eclipse mailing list. I could also cc the text to freebsd-java if > you want. > >>On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:10:26AM -0700, Vizion wrote: >>> I am now faced with the question is the ports tree as inflexible as some >>> people suggest or are some members of our meritocracy more inflexible >>> than the freebsd assets? >> >>This is a complete oversimplification of the situation. >> >>There are some hard-coded assumptions in the ports tree -- one of which is >>that there are two levels, categories and ports -- and these assumptions >>are mirrored in the repositories of tens of thousands if not hundreds of >>thousands of users, and thousands of lines of shell scripts and database >>programs that create the binary packages and monitor the results of those >>build processes. >> >>So when you suggest that the only way that Eclipse can be supported is >>to have a multilevel ports tree -- as you are seeming to -- you are clearly >>totally misunderestimating the amount of effort involved. >> >>In your most recent email I think you are finally getting a lot closer to >>what I consider 'real' problem. IMHO the interesting problems you want to >>solve are the 'search' and 'browse' problems. Directory names controlled >>by CVS structures in an unbranched tree, which are then mirrored all around >>the world, are really poor paradigms for these problems. Herve has >>suggested some better tools for these which are better ways to think >>about these problems and you should look at those. We certainly need more. >> >>The meta-plugin idea is also worth considering. >> >>But restructuring the entire tree, even to add a few hundred ports, is >>simply not feasible with the level of volunteer effort we have and the >>number of people that depend on the current structure worldwide. >> >>mcl > >Ok - building on your comments would my original suggestion, as modified >below, and leaving aside for one moment the arguments as to whether or not >committers might desire it,be capable of implementation without a >restructuring of code? > >This proposal mean that /usr/ports/plugins/*.jar is a repository for files >which are accessed solely via the meta-eclipsevx.xxx ports. > >I think this might shoehorn the necessary structure into the existing > system. What do you think? > >/usr/ports/eclipse/eclipsemainv[x.xxx] Holds the main eclipse ports >/usr/ports/eclipse/meta-eclipse[v.xxx] Holds eclipse plugins loader Just for sake of clarity the above are intended to be straight forward ports >/usr/ports/eclipse/plugins/ Holds the *.jar files >/usr/ports/eclipse/misc1 self contained eclipse ports > /usr/ports/eclipse/misc2 >/usr/ports/eclipse/miscN > >/usr/ports/eclipse/plugins would, in effect, be a set of files which would > be downloaded under control of the meta-eclipse loader > > If so why not use it - that would make eclipse a category which could > enclose a number of ports for eclipse versions, a number >of /usr/ports/eclipse/meta_eclipseplugin ports and each plugin would then >(in effect) be a *.jar file file held within the /usr/eclipse/plugins >directory. >The meta_eclipse plugin could build the library of available plugins on the >fly and use the standard system for registering the plugins on the local >machine. In that way could the need be integrated into the existing system? > >Whatis your reaction? > >david -- 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.