On Thu, Apr 17 2014, Jc García wrote: > 2014-04-17 11:15 GMT-06:00 <gottl...@nyu.edu>: >> On Thu, Apr 17 2014, Jc García wrote: >> >>> 2014-04-17 10:11 GMT-06:00 <gottl...@nyu.edu>: > >> Thank you; that does seem preferable. Is the binary you refer to the >> one in the following message from emerge (I did a --pretend)? >> >> # A more recent source build maintained by the community is available in the >> # seden overlay. A more recent binary is available in the java-overlay. >> >> thanks again, >> allan >> > No, I was referring to the tarball directly downloaded from > eclipse.org and uncompressed in an arbitrary directory(It worked > alright for me that way). > > I hadn't checked out the java overlay for a while, back when I was > settiig up my machine for java, I remember the binary ebuild there, > wasn't compatible with eclim(this was very important for me), but I > think the most recent one is, although is not the newest eclipse > version.
I have now read some more and am questioning if this is worth it. I don't plan on using eclipse for any real java programming, just to teach java and eclipse. Perhaps I will just live with the eclipse editor for that. There are faculty at nyu who use it and would be helpful. But I still have to get some eclipse. I have 4 choices 1. Install eclipse-sdk from the main tree. 2. Install a source build from the seden overlay. 3. Install a binary build from the java overlay. 4. Install a binary build from eclipse.org. Choice 1 is the easiest (add entry in package.unmask) but I hate using masked packages. I prefer source to binary and ebuilds to binary tars so I am planning to try 2, if that fails then 3, if that fails then 4. Does this sound reasonable? allan
