[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports

[Wes Peters]

On Oct 16, 2005, at 3:20 AM, Panagiotis Astithas wrote:

> Wes Peters wrote:
>
>> On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:39 AM, Panagiotis Astithas wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

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.

As to devel vs. editors, eclipse is hardly a text editor.  Emacs at  
least started that way.

--
            Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters                                                      
wes at softweyr.com