[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports

[Petr Valenta]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:10:12 -0700
Vizion <vizion at vizion.occoxmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 16 October 2005 03:20,  the author Panagiotis Astithas contributed 
> to the dialogue on-
>  Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: 
> 
> >Wes Peters wrote:
> >> On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:39 AM, Panagiotis Astithas wrote:
> >>> Mark Linimon wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:15:07PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> >>>>> I don't mind moving the eclipse ports from java to devel, but all
> >>>>> the  other eclipse ports are add-ins to eclipse and should  probably
> >>>>> be  classified along with eclipse.
> >>>>
> >>>> [adding freebsd-java to the Cc:]
> >>>> For some background, there's been on-and-off discussion on -java
> >>>> about how the java category was never really a good idea.  None of
> >>>> the other languages have their own primary category.  In particular
> >>>> we've completely failed to train our users to send 'java' PRs only
> >>>> for problems with the JVMs and 'ports' PRs for things in ports/java.
> >>>>
> >>>>> In particular, if eclipse is a 'devel' tool, I don't see how CDT
> >>>>> and phpeclipse are editors.  GEF isn't a graphics library, it's  a
> >>>>> graphical emulation framework for eclipse, which is (again) a
> >>>>> development tool.
> >>>
> >>> Although I agree with everything you say here, I can't see how this
> >>> is an argument against the fact that GEF and CDT most probably  belong
> >>> to devel. Unless I'm mistaken and you were not making one?
> >>
> >> I was making an argument that regardless of where eclipse migrates  too,
> >> all of it's little pieces should go right along with it, rather  than
> >> getting spread all over the ports system.
> >
> >Since you snipped Mark's reply in your quote, let me clarify that my
> >comments above were directed to Mark and I agree with your point.
> >However I'm not sure whether there has to be a strict rule that every
> >eclipse-foo port should go in the same category. Perhaps the emacs
> >precedent should be followed. See below.
> >
> >Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
> > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:14:59 +0900 (JST)
> > >
> > > Norikatsu Shigemura <nork at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >>Hi eclipse and eclipse related ports maintainers and users!
> > >>	Some time ago, someone suggested that eclipse and eclipse
> > >>	related ports should be located on proper categories.  I
> > >>	think so.  So I suggest following repocopy list.  Anyone,
> > >>	do you have any idea?
> > >
> > > 	Oops, I missed.  Eclipse is very similar to Emacs:
> > > 	1. IDE
> > > 	   Emacs is a one of IDE(or platform).  And anyone doesn't
> > > 	   think that it is ONLY a elisp interpreter.  But it is
> > > 	   a editor.  So I think that it is no problem that Eclipse
> > > 	   may be categolize to editors.
> > >
> > > 	2. Extension-able
> > > 	   Emacs has many extention modules like news reader, language
> > > 	   support, games, ...
> > >
> > > 	3. Mode
> > > 	   Emacs has many mode for descriptions like C, Perl, Java, ...
> > >
> > > 	4. others
> > > 	   It must be that there are other similar feature:-).
> > >
> > >  	java/eclipse                -> editors/eclipse
> > >  	java/eclipse-EPIC           -> editors/eclipse-EPIC
> > >  	java/eclipse-cdt            -> editors/eclipse-cdt
> > >  	java/eclipse-checkstyle     -> devel/eclipse-checkstyle
> > >  	java/eclipse-clay-core      -> databases/eclipse-clay-core
> > >  	java/eclipse-devel          -> editors/eclipse-devel
> > >  	java/eclipse-emf            -> editors/eclipse-emf
> > >  	java/eclipse-examples       -> devel/eclipse-examples
> > >  	java/eclipse-gef            -> editors/eclipse-gef
> > >  	java/eclipse-gef-examples   -> editors/eclipse-gef-examples
> > >  	java/eclipse-langpack       -> editors/eclipse-langpack
> > >  	java/eclipse-log4e          -> editors/eclipse-log4e
> > >  	java/eclipse-lomboz         -> devel/eclipse-lomboz
> > >  	java/eclipse-pmd            -> devel/eclipse-pmd
> > >  	java/eclipse-quantum        -> databases/eclipse-quantum
> > >  	java/eclipse-sqlexplorer    -> databases/eclipse-sqlexplorer
> > >  	java/eclipse-sysdeo-tomcat  -> www/eclipse-sysdeo-tomcat
> > >  	java/eclipse-uml            -> editors/eclipse-uml
> > >  	java/eclipse-v4all          -> editors/eclipse-v4all
> > >  	java/eclipse-vep            -> editors/eclipse-vep
> > >  	java/eclipse-vep-examples   -> editors/eclipse-vep-examples
> > >  	java/eclipse-viplugin       -> editors/eclipse-viplugin
> > >  	java/eclipseme              -> devel/eclipseme
> > >  	java/phpeclipse             -> editors/phpeclipse
> >
> >This sounds fine, too.
> Sounds crazy to me...
> Scattering eclipse tools over the whole ports collections is, to my mind, a 
> retrograde, rather than a positive step. There are another 290 pus eclipse 
> tools to bring on board!!
> I would continue to advocate for a single collection
> david 

I agree,
many people don't need eclipse and puting it into whole port collection is bad because there will be no way to disable fetching eclipse-* with cvsup...I think that /usr/ports/eclipse/ will be the best solution.

Petr
> 
> -- 
> 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-java at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-java-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> 
> 
>