ports/133457: [PATCH] java/eclipse-webtools: update to 3.0.3

[Rick C. Petty]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:42:23PM +0200, Heiner Strauß wrote:
> Am Montag, den 29.06.2009, 07:00 +0000 schrieb Gerhard Schmidt:
> > 
> >  Updates via eclipse updater are per user updates (stored in homedir of th=
> >  e
> >  User). The port is per Computer (stored in /usr/local). I maintain some
> >  Workstations with 200+ users.
> >  
> >  Please keep the Port.
> 
> That's a point. But someone has to keep them in sync with eclipse,
> testing and committing etc. If they are kept like now, they are adding
> more confusion and no help I think. It took me hours to find out what
> was wrong with them and how to fix :) Drop them or maintain. The actual
> webtools are 3.0.4 already. Maybe for bigger installs we could have an
> eclipse-plugin-mirror port or something, if you want a server centric
> install.

I disagree with the OP.  You can drop the user-installed plugins directly
into /usr/local/eclipse/ with a modicum of effort.  You can network mount
that directory to avoid updating every machine too.  In fact you can even
have multiple versions of eclipse installed and run side-by-side with a
little effort.  I've played with modifications to my /usr/local/bin/eclipse
script to do just that.

There's absolutely no reason we should have any eclipse-* ports since every
one of them is obtainable through eclipse's plugin architecture and
software updates screens.  It's especially painful if there are multiple
supported eclipse versions in the ports tree.  I hope that the OP's not
suggesting that we create thousands of ports, one for each of Eclipse's
1200+ plugins times each version of Eclipse.  Even if he were to volunteer
to be the maintainer for each, it seems silly to have the plugins as ports.
Although there is some precedence with p5-* ports (instead of using CPAN
exclusively).

In fact I've had troubles with many of the fbsd ports but all of them seem
to behave when I grab them with Eclipse's updater.

-- Rick C. Petty