Fwd: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports

[Vizion]

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
Date: Monday 17 October 2005 08:44
From: Vizion <vizion at vizion.occoxmail.com>
To: freebsd-ports at freebsd.org
Cc: Wes Peters <wes at softweyr.com>, freebsd-eclipse at FreeBSD.org, Norikatsu 
Shigemura <nork at FreeBSD.org>, Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com>, Herve 
Quiroz <herve.quiroz at esil.univ-mrs.fr>, Panagiotis Astithas <past at ebs.gr>, 
freebsd-java at FreeBSD.org

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You do not get it that the ports systems, as currently configured, is  out of
date as far as the newly emerging framework centric applications model as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.
_______________________________________________
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.