[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports

[Herve Quiroz]

[recipient list trimmed down]

On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 06:55:25PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> That's exactly the point I was (and am) trying to argue against.  I  
> have to resort to 'make search' to find emacs tools these days  
> because they've been thrown all over the ports system by well-meaning  
> but misguided contributors, and I'd hate to see that happen to  
> eclipse tools too.

Greg (glewis@) already suggested to create a new *virtual* category for
Eclipse ports to ease the search of a port. That could do the trick...

Or else you may just use FreshPorts.org facilities to look for an
Eclipse plugin:

http://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=name&method=match&query=eclipse&num=100&orderby=category&orderbyupdown=asc&search=Search

Again, I don't think we should make an exception of Eclipse. All other
ports comply to the convention and for instance there is no 'apache'
non-virtual category. Regarding Apache, we are speaking of at least 116
'mod_*' ports while there are only 24 eclipse ports. Moreover, 'apache'
is not even a virtual category. But that's probably because all 'mod_*'
ports are in the same 'www' non-virtual category.

So my take is that either we group all Eclipse ports into the same
non-virtual category (but not a new 'eclipse' category which makes no
sense) or we scater them but tag them by having them all in the
'eclipse' virtual category.

Herve