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-eclipse To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
