[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
marquis at roble.com
Sun Oct 16 09:27:51 PDT 2005
Vizion <vizion at vizion.occoxmail.com>
> My solution is not popular even if it is logical.
Honestly David, until you can make a better case your solution
doesn't seem logical either.
>I say the ports structure needs a strategy that takes account of
>the reality of tools such as eclipse and soes not hesititate to
>create entirely new categories to meet those new neeeds.
Before doing that you really need to define what constitutes a port
category i.e, a set of rules which can universally applied. This
definition would need to encompass all ports, not just the one
you're concerned about today, and do so in a way that is
self-evident and at has some consensus among port maintainers.
> We now need something like
That would be the worst solution I could think of, but thanks for
making your special interest clear. We can see by this it is a
religious issue and the integrity of the ports collection is less
important than your particular application. Since you are not
similarly advocating ports/netbeans or ports/emacs the proposition
is logically indefensible.
> But this view does not dit well with those who feel there is a virtue in
> preserving the existing structure which I cannot help but regard as an
> anachronism for these newly emerging frameworks which do not fit well into
> the traditional structure.
You've outlined several possible frameworks where there's really
only room for one. Choose wisely.
[ ] existing
[ ] emerging
[ ] traditional
[ ] structure
Roble Systems Consulting
More information about the freebsd-java