Ken Yamada wrote:
Mike,
It does not run with jdk1.5.0 - it generates "Bad version number in .class
file" error. So, we'd better include JAVA_HOME=/usr/local/jdk1.6.0 in eclipse.in.
I reflected your patch, the above and eliminating unnecessary working files
to my eclipse-europa-dan.tgz and confirmed that it works at
http://www.tydfam.jp/eclipse-europa-dan.tgz.
Instruction.html and "Building the Eclipse executable from the eclipse SDK download:" does not tell much about how we can automate it unfortunately. "features/eclipse.equinox.executable" is a newly organized hierarchy and build.xml looks not fully incorporate this change.
Europa updates works OK, Subclipse works OK, but JBossTools 2.0.0Beta3 does
not - it seemingly falls into a long nap. (My driver of eclipse 3.3 is
JBossTools, so it is very unfortunate personally .....)
I have no problem with Greg's suggestion - put it to eclipse-devel, and you
may use the file freely with Dan's concent however eclipse 3.4M1 is already
there and we may better find a good strategy to chase this rapidly evolving
creature.
Ken et al,
Unless I'm mistaken, eclipse.in will use the JAVA_HOME value defined by
the Makefile, which will be 1.6. I don't think it will need to be set
statically, which IMHO will add an extra step to future porting
efforts. (Including the 1.5 build, if that is made to work in the future.)
I'm not really sure about the launcher build issue... and it doesn't
look like I'll have time to get into it before I head away. I'd be
surprised if the problem exists across the board with other platforms
though... although perhaps the majority of users use the packaged
builds. (I should do some googling on the issue, but my hands are a bit
full right now.)
FWIW, I'm successfully using PHPeclipse, Subclipse and the Apache LDAP
browser plugins... I do need to install RSE and see how that does; but
that's about my lot.
I agree that it would be great to see FreeBSD port following the Eclipse
releases more closely... and I did see someone talking about 3.4M1 on
IRC today. (From what I hear, there's a few hefty compat issues with
plugins.) I'm not sure what the best course of action is to reduce the
workload in the future; I'm guessing that previous ports have been
offered back to Eclipse for inclusion (as per Instructions.html), but
who's to say. Either way, it would probably be a good call to submit
the patch set back to the Eclipse project... I'm sure it would be a step
in the right direction. As Ken mentioned, it would be good to
streamline the process, but other than trying to get the FreeBSD basics
back into the release stream, what can be put in place to reduce the
repetition etc going forward?
Per Dan's posting earlier this evening, I don't have a concern with the
build warnings per say; that was merely a reflection of Ken's earlier
comments. From a user perspective, they're no more ominous than those
of building previous Eclipse ports and are, after all 'warnings' ;-).
BTW, I noticed I'd top posted a reply or two earlier... my apologies if
anyone was irked by that, I just wasn't paying attention. :-p
Cheers,
Mike.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
