[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
neuhauser at sigpipe.cz
Fri Oct 21 16:59:52 PDT 2005
# linimon at lonesome.com / 2005-10-21 17:39:58 -0500:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 03:19:47PM -0700, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > Seems like the quantity of ports available will eventually hit a plateau
> > with the current two level directory structure. No one is afraid to update
> > the basic OS when its needed, even when it means using an entirly different
> > file system ( ie. UFS1 -=> 2 ), why be so scared when it comes to the ports
> > system?
> Then PLEASE SUBMIT PATCHES. Tested ones. Involving portsmon. Involving
> the build cluster. Involving marcusom tinderbox. Involving FreshPorts.
> Involving everything in bsd.*.mk. Involving fixing up all the dependencies
> after all the thousands of repocopies.
This is an absurd overreaction.
FreshPorts is a third party resource, and FreeBSD does change other
interfaces also used by other third party software on regular basis.
The build cluster automation shouldn't limit the utility of ports.
BTW, are the scripts publicly available? I don't see anything on
If I wanted to update the build cluster code, where would I get it?
portsmon is your software, and keeping it hostage to changes in
ports is IMO unethical.
Interfaces sometimes change for the better, just update your code
and be done with it.
Note that I'm not advocating doing the repocopies because that would
royally screw the repository history, and that's just not worth it.
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man. You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991
More information about the freebsd-ports