Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
Locked
123
123
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
 
|
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. Well, Eclipse is one of these 'suites' that doesn't really fit well in one particular category. You could make the same argument about OpenOffice, opengroupware, ZendStudio, and so forth. (These 3 are chosen deliberately because they're scattered in 3 different categories). OpenBSD has a 'productivity' category although what it has in it is more like our 'deskutils'. Perhaps we should consider co-opting that name? (Our "deskutils" is a combination of things like calendar programs and individual GNOME add-ons, so it's a little bit of a mixed bag. However, I'm not sure I can see Eclipse fitting in with those). There is also the fact to consider that at 1624 ports, devel is simply too huge for its own good. Everything is in there including the kitchen sink. Even if we just went with an 'ide' category, there are still 27 ports that would probably fit in there. Not a lot in my book (and I've always been against anything that would lead us towards having hundreds of categories), but I could see an argument for it, even so. I'll leave the idea of completely reshuffling all the categories for another time, since everyone is probably tired of listening to my own particular views on that. mcl _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
On Oct 14, 2005, at 10:30 PM, 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. Makes you wonder how much the rest of the ports system would be cleaned up with a 'perl' category and all those p5-something- something ports got tossed into that basket, doesn't it? >> 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. > > Well, Eclipse is one of these 'suites' that doesn't really fit well > in one particular category. You could make the same argument about > OpenOffice, opengroupware, ZendStudio, and so forth. (These 3 are > chosen deliberately because they're scattered in 3 different > categories). > > OpenBSD has a 'productivity' category although what it has in it is > more > like our 'deskutils'. Perhaps we should consider co-opting that name? I don't know that 'productivity' really describes what these are. In particular, I'm not sure if opengroupware adds productivity or subtracts it. ;^) Ditto for eclipse, for that matter. A category name that means 'big blobs of software with lots of options' might be appropriate. > (Our "deskutils" is a combination of things like calendar programs and > individual GNOME add-ons, so it's a little bit of a mixed bag. > However, > I'm not sure I can see Eclipse fitting in with those). > > There is also the fact to consider that at 1624 ports, devel is simply > too huge for its own good. Everything is in there including the > kitchen sink. devel is one of several categories that has grown useless; www is another. It's certainly worth thinking about a category that actually makes sense for these large software systems like openoffice and eclipse. > Even if we just went with an 'ide' category, there are still 27 ports > that would probably fit in there. Not a lot in my book (and I've > always > been against anything that would lead us towards having hundreds of > categories), but I could see an argument for it, even so. > > I'll leave the idea of completely reshuffling all the categories for > another time, since everyone is probably tired of listening to my own > particular views on that. > > mcl > -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters [hidden email] _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
|
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:59:09PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> Makes you wonder how much the rest of the ports system would be > cleaned up with a 'perl' category and all those p5-something- > something ports got tossed into that basket, doesn't it? I do _not_ recommend we attempt to do the 1688 (one thousand six hundred eighty-eight) repocopies, even if anyone was insane enough to volunteer to try to do so. It would take months to sort through the damage to the depedency tree, during which time the ports tree would effectively be broken. No matter how much we tested it first, we would never get them all. And, of course, we'd have to have the tree frozen to run the regression test, or the test would become instantly obsolete the second we ran it. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. mcl _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
In reply to this post by Mark Linimon-2
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. > > > Well, Eclipse is one of these 'suites' that doesn't really fit well > in one particular category. You could make the same argument about > OpenOffice, opengroupware, ZendStudio, and so forth. (These 3 are > chosen deliberately because they're scattered in 3 different categories). > > OpenBSD has a 'productivity' category although what it has in it is more > like our 'deskutils'. Perhaps we should consider co-opting that name? > > (Our "deskutils" is a combination of things like calendar programs and > individual GNOME add-ons, so it's a little bit of a mixed bag. However, > I'm not sure I can see Eclipse fitting in with those). > > There is also the fact to consider that at 1624 ports, devel is simply > too huge for its own good. Everything is in there including the > kitchen sink. > > Even if we just went with an 'ide' category, there are still 27 ports > that would probably fit in there. Not a lot in my book (and I've always > been against anything that would lead us towards having hundreds of > categories), but I could see an argument for it, even so. > > I'll leave the idea of completely reshuffling all the categories for > another time, since everyone is probably tired of listening to my own > particular views on that. 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? Regarding the splitting of devel and www categories, perhaps we should wait until the port tree migrates to subversion (yeah, right :-))? Cheers, Panagiotis _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
In reply to this post by Mark Linimon-2
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:14:59 +0900 (JST)
Norikatsu Shigemura <[hidden email]> 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 _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
|
In reply to this post by Wes Peters
On Friday 14 October 2005 22:59, the author Wes Peters contributed to the
dialogue on- Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: >On Oct 14, 2005, at 10:30 PM, 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. > >Makes you wonder how much the rest of the ports system would be >cleaned up with a 'perl' category and all those p5-something- >something ports got tossed into that basket, doesn't it? > >>> 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. >> >> Well, Eclipse is one of these 'suites' that doesn't really fit well >> in one particular category. You could make the same argument about >> OpenOffice, opengroupware, ZendStudio, and so forth. (These 3 are >> chosen deliberately because they're scattered in 3 different >> categories). >> >> OpenBSD has a 'productivity' category although what it has in it is >> more >> like our 'deskutils'. Perhaps we should consider co-opting that name? > >I don't know that 'productivity' really describes what these are. In >particular, I'm not sure if opengroupware adds productivity or >subtracts it. ;^) Ditto for eclipse, for that matter. A category >name that means 'big blobs of software with lots of options' might be >appropriate. > >> (Our "deskutils" is a combination of things like calendar programs and >> individual GNOME add-ons, so it's a little bit of a mixed bag. >> However, >> I'm not sure I can see Eclipse fitting in with those). >> >> There is also the fact to consider that at 1624 ports, devel is simply >> too huge for its own good. Everything is in there including the >> kitchen sink. > >devel is one of several categories that has grown useless; www is >another. It's certainly worth thinking about a category that >actually makes sense for these large software systems like openoffice >and eclipse. > >> Even if we just went with an 'ide' category, there are still 27 ports >> that would probably fit in there. Not a lot in my book (and I've >> always >> been against anything that would lead us towards having hundreds of >> categories), but I could see an argument for it, even so. >> >> I'll leave the idea of completely reshuffling all the categories for >> another time, since everyone is probably tired of listening to my own >> particular views on that. My solution is not popular even if it is logical. I say the ports structure needs a strategy that takes account of the reality of tools such as eclipse and soes not hesititate to create entirely new categories to meet those new neeeds. When the ports tree logic was defined (long ago in comparative computer history) it structure fitted well. We now need something like ports/eclipse where all the tools that form part of the eclipse fremework can be grouped together. But this view does not dit well with those who feel there is a virtue in preserving the existing structure which I cannot help but regard as an anachronism for these newly emerging frameworks which do not fit well into the traditional structure. david >> >> mcl > >-- > Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? >Wes Peters >[hidden email] > >_______________________________________________ >[hidden email] mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" -- 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. _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
|
In reply to this post by Panagiotis Astithas
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. > Regarding the splitting of devel and www categories, perhaps we > should wait until the port tree migrates to subversion (yeah, > right :-))? Or hell freezes over, whichever happens first? -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters [hidden email] _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
|
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 10:46:16PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> >Regarding the splitting of devel and www categories, perhaps we > >should wait until the port tree migrates to subversion (yeah, > >right :-))? > > Or hell freezes over, whichever happens first? /me does a poll to see how many people want to do 500-1000 repocopies. Hands? Anyone? mcl _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
|
In reply to this post by Wes Peters
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 <[hidden email]> 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. Cheers, Panagiotis _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
In reply to this post by Mark Linimon-2
Vizion <[hidden email]>
> My solution is not popular even if it is logical. Honestly David, until you can make a better case your solution doesn't seem logical either. >I say the ports structure needs a strategy that takes account of >the reality of tools such as eclipse and soes not hesititate to >create entirely new categories to meet those new neeeds. Before doing that you really need to define what constitutes a port category i.e, a set of rules which can universally applied. This definition would need to encompass all ports, not just the one you're concerned about today, and do so in a way that is self-evident and at has some consensus among port maintainers. > We now need something like > ports/eclipse That would be the worst solution I could think of, but thanks for making your special interest clear. We can see by this it is a religious issue and the integrity of the ports collection is less important than your particular application. Since you are not similarly advocating ports/netbeans or ports/emacs the proposition is logically indefensible. > But this view does not dit well with those who feel there is a virtue in > preserving the existing structure which I cannot help but regard as an > anachronism for these newly emerging frameworks which do not fit well into > the traditional structure. You've outlined several possible frameworks where there's really only room for one. Choose wisely. [ ] existing [ ] emerging [ ] traditional [ ] structure -- Roger Marquis Roble Systems Consulting http://www.roble.com/ _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
|
|
In reply to this post by Panagiotis Astithas
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 <[hidden email]> 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. 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 -- 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. _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Linimon-2
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
From: Vizion <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] CC: Panagiotis Astithas <[hidden email]>, Wes Peters <[hidden email]>, [hidden email], [hidden email], [hidden email], [hidden email], Norikatsu Shigemura <[hidden email]>, [hidden email], [hidden email], Mark Linimon <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] 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 <[hidden email]> 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. 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 -- 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. -- 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. _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 01:43:41PM -0700, Vizion wrote:
> 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 We already discussed this matter some time ago. And the discussion just died by itself IIRC. You keep telling us about the "290 eclipse tools" that exist all around the world but what I just see: $ ls /usr/ports/java | grep eclipse | wc -l --> 24 So we are speaking of 24 ports here. Nothing close to 290 if you ask me. Besides, you keep whining about the poor philosophy behind the whole ports framework and speaking of the closed-mind of its developers who cannot see the "pure true genious solution" that you suggested. I don't really think this will encourage people to try and understand your approach. Fine. As it was the case with the latest discussion we had on the subject, I think I'll just find another way to spend my time and energy (shooting PRs or discussing and fixing the existing framework). Herve _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
|
In reply to this post by Panagiotis Astithas
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 [hidden email] _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
|
(To all)
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. As the directory structure imposes Big->Small naming on the ports, and this is always going to be inadequate. Many ports will have multiple namings and multiple ways of indexing that make lots of sense. The directory structure gives one indexing and one name only though. The problem is not where Eclipse or a plugin is located, rather, it is that the directory structure cannot support anything more complex than the simplest naming schemes. Moving Eclipse does not change this, only improving the search tools can help here. So what is needed is something that deals with: searchports eclipse plugin python or somesuch. iang _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
In reply to this post by Wes Peters
O Wes Peters έγραψε στις Oct 16, 2005 :
> > On Oct 16, 2005, at 3:20 AM, Panagiotis Astithas wrote: > > As to devel vs. editors, eclipse is hardly a text editor. Emacs at > least started that way. Perhaps i missed something, but why all that bother with eclipse, when (at least) all the java add-ons for it are easily managed by the tool itself? For possible JNI eclipse plugins (if any) a port definately makes sense but for the majority (java) i think the community over engineers the case instead of working on more vital issues of the operation system. I am not quoting directly any of the fellows participating in the discussion, i just grabbed the last email to write my lines. > > Wes Peters > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ > [hidden email] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" > -- -Achilleus _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
|
Hi Achilleus,
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 04:09:37PM +0300, Achilleus Mantzios wrote: > Perhaps i missed something, > but why all that bother with eclipse, when (at least) all the > java add-ons for it are easily managed by the tool itself? > > For possible JNI eclipse plugins (if any) a port definately > makes sense but for the majority (java) i think the community > over engineers the case instead of working on more vital issues > of the operation system. You are right this is becoming a huge issue while it should probably not. The main concern, IMHO, is that the 'java' category could disapear as a main category (a non-virtual category) some day. There are indeed several people (including me) who believe that it was a mistake in the first place and I am starting to think that me should effectively get rid of it before more and more ports are added into it. Take as an example the recent add of the java/eclipse-webtools port. We decided some time ago to avoid adding new ports in the 'java' physicial category when they are not *stricly* Java support-related (that is, JDK, Sun official libraries and APIs, and such tools). OTOH I can understand why Norikatsu just did commit the port in 'java' because all other Eclipse ports were already there. I believe that moving the ports that do not rely to core Java support from the 'java' main category would allow commiters to avoid such practices. That's why I agree with this whole "eclipse repocopy" concern. Now, I am probably not well aware of the actual use of each Eclipse package to be be the right person to decide whether we should have them all in the same main category or scattered all over the ports tree. But if I am to give my two cents on the topic, I believe that if we want to get rid of the "Java exception" (the only language with its own non-virtual category, no specific PKGNAMEPREFIX while perl, python and other have one...) we should not produce another exception, namely the "Eclipse exception". Hence I think we should do just the same as for the many other "applications with many modules" that exists in the tree (Emacs is IMHO a good example) and thus I think scattering them is a fine approach. To sum up, scatter them or put them in one single place, but please move them from the 'java' category once the ports tree slush is over. That will be 24 ports less to move when we decide to get rid of the non-virtual 'java' category and moreover this will allow new Eclipse ports to comply with the defined conventions for Java ports. Herve _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
In reply to this post by vizion-2
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:10:12 -0700
Vizion <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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. > _______________________________________________ > [hidden email] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" > > > [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
|
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:01:46PM +0200, Petr Valenta wrote:
> 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. Actually I believe you can set up a refuse file to disable fetching Eclipse stuff with cvsup. Something like that should do the trick: $ find /usr/ports -type d -name 'eclipse*' -mindepth 2 -maxdepth 2 \ | sed 's|^/usr/||' >> <location of your refuse file> Anyway, I don't think this is really an issue... Herve _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
|
|
In reply to this post by Wes Peters
[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&num=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. Herve _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
«
Return to freebsd-java
|
1 view|%1 views
Loading...
| Powered by Nabble | Edit this page |