[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports

[Wes Peters]

On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:39 AM, Panagiotis Astithas wrote:

> 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   
>>> development tool.
>
> 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?

I was making an argument that regardless of where eclipse migrates  
too, all of it's little pieces should go right along with it, rather  
than getting spread all over the ports system.

> Regarding the splitting of devel and www categories, perhaps we  
> should wait until the port tree migrates to subversion (yeah,  
> right :-))?

Or hell freezes over, whichever happens first?

--
            Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters                                                      
wes at softweyr.com