Let's get this discussion on its own thread. The questions
I have are:
* Do any of the plugin ports add significant
functionality for
FreeBSD?
* Do we want to be in the business of maintaining
ports for each
and every Eclipse plugin?
For the first, I'm only personally familiar with the CDT
port and must
say that the modifications from the generic CDT source are
quite small.
In fact, most of the patches are there simply to change any
references
from "Linux" to "FreeBSD" which I would
suggest isn't the best way to
include this. I'd actually think the best way to handle
this is to get
the appropriate changes added in upstream, but that might be
a bit more
of a philosophical discussion. Regardless, one problem with
porting CDT
to the latest version for 3.3.x is that they no longer keep
snapshots
available via FTP. They are only available via svn. I
imagine that
ports has a way of dealing with that, but I haven't seen an
example yet.
Second, I wouldn't think the FreeBSD community wouldn't want
to be in
the business of keeping ports for each potential Eclipse
plugin. That
said, I don't have the history to know why it happened in
the first
place. If the plugin ports continue to be maintained, I
think a hard
look would need to be taken to determine what qualifies a
plugin to be
included as a port. I could understand if the particular
plugin just
simply won't work under FreeBSD if installed from the
Eclipse updater.
However, in the case of something like CDT, it would seem to
be more of
a problem then it is worth.
What do others think?
Ryan
_______________________________________________
freebsd-eclipse freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclip
se
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-eclipse-unsubscribefreebsd.org"
|