On Nov 18, 2013, at 12:51 , Thomas Gellekum <thomas.gelle...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.
>
OK if we want to keep eclipse3 we should do the following:
eclipse -> eclipse3
eclipse 4.3 -> eclipse
eclipse-devel -> IGNORED until we do 4.4
How does that sound?
Best,
George
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
