Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:11:25 +0200 From: Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr> To: Achilleus Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, wes@freebsd.org, freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org, mitsuru@riken.jp, tux@pinguru.net, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org>, rtdean@cytherianage.net, sugimura@jp.FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports Message-ID: <20051017141125.GA25725@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0510171543211.31394-100000@matrix.gatewaynet.com> References: <1B8112AF-8C0E-4BA0-8D1C-DA6AD529F327@softweyr.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0510171543211.31394-100000@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Achilleus, On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 04:09:37PM +0300, Achilleus Mantzios wrote: > Perhaps i missed something, > but why all that bother with eclipse, when (at least) all the > java add-ons for it are easily managed by the tool itself? > > For possible JNI eclipse plugins (if any) a port definately > makes sense but for the majority (java) i think the community > over engineers the case instead of working on more vital issues > of the operation system. You are right this is becoming a huge issue while it should probably not. The main concern, IMHO, is that the 'java' category could disapear as a main category (a non-virtual category) some day. There are indeed several people (including me) who believe that it was a mistake in the first place and I am starting to think that me should effectively get rid of it before more and more ports are added into it. Take as an example the recent add of the java/eclipse-webtools port. We decided some time ago to avoid adding new ports in the 'java' physicial category when they are not *stricly* Java support-related (that is, JDK, Sun official libraries and APIs, and such tools). OTOH I can understand why Norikatsu just did commit the port in 'java' because all other Eclipse ports were already there. I believe that moving the ports that do not rely to core Java support from the 'java' main category would allow commiters to avoid such practices. That's why I agree with this whole "eclipse repocopy" concern. Now, I am probably not well aware of the actual use of each Eclipse package to be be the right person to decide whether we should have them all in the same main category or scattered all over the ports tree. But if I am to give my two cents on the topic, I believe that if we want to get rid of the "Java exception" (the only language with its own non-virtual category, no specific PKGNAMEPREFIX while perl, python and other have one...) we should not produce another exception, namely the "Eclipse exception". Hence I think we should do just the same as for the many other "applications with many modules" that exists in the tree (Emacs is IMHO a good example) and thus I think scattering them is a fine approach. To sum up, scatter them or put them in one single place, but please move them from the 'java' category once the ports tree slush is over. That will be 24 ports less to move when we decide to get rid of the non-virtual 'java' category and moreover this will allow new Eclipse ports to comply with the defined conventions for Java ports. Herve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051017141125.GA25725>