Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:27:30 -0700 From: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Herve Quiroz <hq@freebsd.org>, freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How should eclipse be organized in the ports tree? Message-ID: <200508301927.31549.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200508301615.53251.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> References: <200508251303.59453.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20050830212342.GA32240@soaustin.net> <200508301615.53251.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200508301927.31549.vizion>