[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
vizion at vizion.occoxmail.com
Tue Oct 18 07:48:16 PDT 2005
On Monday 17 October 2005 07:11, the author Herve Quiroz contributed to the
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports:
>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
>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
There is a very practical reason for not scattering.
The '"lets not make an exception" argument misses the point. Can not the
practical needs of users rather than precedent be our guide here? Eclipse and
other emerging framework centric computing environments are essentially
different from traditional application centric computing.
If we try and shoehorn franework centric ports into a ports system which is
designed for application centric computing we are not giving equal weight to
Framework centric environments are different and need different treatment.
>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.
I agree eclipse does not belong in the java category - it, and any other
subsantial framework centric port needs its own category.
>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.
>freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
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.
More information about the freebsd-java