[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
Norikatsu Shigemura
nork at FreeBSD.org
Fri Oct 21 18:01:02 PDT 2005
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:07:27 -0700
Vizion <vizion at vizion.occoxmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 21 October 2005 16:59, the author Roman Neuhauser contributed to
> the dialogue on-
> Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports:
> ># 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?
> Good point
> I know my opinion might be regarded as ecentric but, as I see it, the
> community is spending far too much od its developmental resopurces on
> advancing the operating system and far too little on bringing user interfaces
> and convenience up to date.
> I see it as time to slow down on OS development and really focus on bringing
> the operating system management to a level that accords with comparable
> modern day standards.
> >> 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.
> Agreed -
Hum.. The eclipse repocopy discussion became new ports system
discussion. Next time, please implement ports2/eclipse or
ports/eclise. So I'll repocopy from */eclipse-* to eclipse/, too.
BTW as soon as possible;-), I'll send-pr my 2nd repocopy plan
(java/eclipse -> editors/eclipse), and repocopy these.
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list