On 11/18/13 17:48, George Neville-Neil wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2013, at 16:37 , Jimmy Kelley <ljboi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've updated the shar to fix this…
Thank you for stepping up and working on this!
> Now, to the point of how we deal with the upgrade.
>
> I’m not against the idea of moving to eclipse4-kepler from what we have now.
> In fact we could retire both eclipse and eclipse-devel if people are happy
> with eclipse4-kepler, but
> that’ll take more testing I think.
>
> What do others think?
The rule used to be that we use the simple name ("eclipse") for the
default version of any port, usually the latest release version. That
should be 4.3 (Kepler), if/when people are happy with it. Remember that
this is the name you use when you install packages or use a tool like
portmaster to build. It should be simple, and get more specific if you
want something different than the default.
I would like to keep the latest version of Eclipse 3.x, e. g. for 3rd
party plugins ("eclipse3").
I wouldn't like to keep 4.2, under any name. If we wanted to, though, we
should follow the other examples in the portstree and use version
numbers ("eclipse42"), not names. Who wants to remember which version
maps to which name two years from now?
We used eclipse-devel basically to shake out problems with new versions
(4.2 being the latest), while still providing a working default. That
port can either go or be IGNOREd; I don't really have a preference here.
tg
_______________________________________________
freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-eclipse
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-eclipse-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
