[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports

[Vizion]

On Monday 17 October 2005 08:44,  the author Vizion contributed to the 
dialogue on-
 Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: 

>On Monday 17 October 2005 08:30,  the author Herve Quiroz contributed to the
>dialogue on-
>
> Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports:
>>[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&
>>n um=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.
>
>You guys just do not get it.
>
>I have spent over 45 five years in the computer industry and am fed up with
>technologists who think in terms of their precious systems rather than on
>behalf of people that use them.
>
>You do not get it that the ports systems, as currently configured, is  out
> of date as far as the newly emerging framework centric applications model
> as against the traditional application centric model.
>
>e now need a category /ports/eclipse and not this ridiculous scattering
> arounf the system or some half hearted 'virtual' solution that gets in the
> way of a real framework centric solution.
>
>I am sick to death of hearing the same old appeal based on "mot making an
>exception" which really means "I want to bury my head in the sand" and stick
>to the old ways of doing things.
>
>And before anyone tells me -- yes I am angry.
>
>david
>
>>Herve
>>_______________________________________________
>>freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
>>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
>>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.

-- 
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.