[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
past at ebs.gr
Sat Oct 15 02:40:01 PDT 2005
Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:15:07PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
>>I don't mind moving the eclipse ports from java to devel, but all the
>>other eclipse ports are add-ins to eclipse and should probably be
>>classified along with eclipse.
> [adding freebsd-java to the Cc:]
> For some background, there's been on-and-off discussion on -java
> about how the java category was never really a good idea. None of
> the other languages have their own primary category. In particular
> we've completely failed to train our users to send 'java' PRs only
> for problems with the JVMs and 'ports' PRs for things in ports/java.
>>In particular, if eclipse is a 'devel' tool, I don't see how CDT
>>and phpeclipse are editors. GEF isn't a graphics library, it's a
>>graphical emulation framework for eclipse, which is (again) a
> Well, Eclipse is one of these 'suites' that doesn't really fit well
> in one particular category. You could make the same argument about
> OpenOffice, opengroupware, ZendStudio, and so forth. (These 3 are
> chosen deliberately because they're scattered in 3 different categories).
> OpenBSD has a 'productivity' category although what it has in it is more
> like our 'deskutils'. Perhaps we should consider co-opting that name?
> (Our "deskutils" is a combination of things like calendar programs and
> individual GNOME add-ons, so it's a little bit of a mixed bag. However,
> I'm not sure I can see Eclipse fitting in with those).
> There is also the fact to consider that at 1624 ports, devel is simply
> too huge for its own good. Everything is in there including the
> kitchen sink.
> Even if we just went with an 'ide' category, there are still 27 ports
> that would probably fit in there. Not a lot in my book (and I've always
> been against anything that would lead us towards having hundreds of
> categories), but I could see an argument for it, even so.
> I'll leave the idea of completely reshuffling all the categories for
> another time, since everyone is probably tired of listening to my own
> particular views on that.
Although I agree with everything you say here, I can't see how this is
an argument against the fact that GEF and CDT most probably belong to
devel. Unless I'm mistaken and you were not making one?
Regarding the splitting of devel and www categories, perhaps we should
wait until the port tree migrates to subversion (yeah, right :-))?
More information about the freebsd-java