Re: Eclipse 3 packaging
> I. Choosing A Packaging Approach
What's wrong with the current one until upstream release proper source
drops? I would rather build off of a supported upstream drop instead of
CVS checkouts.
>
> ~ The SWT libraries and the Eclipse platform itself need to be
> packaged in such a way that applications beside the JDT can also easily
> use them without having to install a professional IDE on an average
> user's workstation just to get, say, an RSS aggregator.
This is possible now.
> II. Distribution Targeting Strategy
> ~ This is a topic that can get unnecessarily inflamed when other
> choose to use it as a platform for the free Java movement and/or their
> favorite free VM. Let's please avoid that in this discussion. Eclipse
> is a desktop application. As such, this makes an attempt to push
> Eclipse to main right away rather problematic, even if one chose to just
> support x86 and ignore powerpc and the other architectures. Free Java
> for the UI is on its way, but I think we can all agree that it is still
> on a rather distant horizon.
My goal is to make Eclipse work out of the box perfectly with GCJ 4.0.
Obviously, the end user (you) can switch or choose whatever VM he wants
on his own. I am not going to invest my time with making Eclipse run on
other VMs. Patches are accepted. ;)
Eclipse does not use Swing. So, the missing support for swing in
Classpath is not of much consequence to this.
> ~ Targeting an interim step, where the goal is to get a really
> well-formed, modular packaging of Eclipse's components in contrib with
> it running on non-free VMs would serve to break the work into more
> manageable steps or phases. Once a really solid, buttoned-down package
> that at least builds well on x86 and PowerPC is in place, effort can
> focus on a move to main, with the assurance of a solid packaging
> foundation beneath us.
>
> III. Choosing An Initial Source Version
> ~ There has been some talk about this on IRC #debian-java of late, and
> the consensus seems to be that going with 3.1 as an initial version is a
> good idea. I personally endorse this, as I assisted on a bug report
> with Eclipse[3] that enables a successful build on PowerPC Linux with
> GTK. Prior to the 3.1 development stream, this build was very broken.
> Starting with anything prior to 3.1 will require us to fix/patch quite a
> bit of stuff that has been remediated in the 3.1 stream.
That's fine with me. I missed my goal for Ubuntu Hoary, which was my
main reason for wanting a stable release anyways. I assume 3.1 will be
released before next October. =)
> [0] -
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-eclipse-maintainers/2005-January/000037.html
> [1] - http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-eclipse
> [2] -
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-eclipse-maintainers/2005-January/000004.html
> [3] - https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=57897
>
> Regards,
> - --
> Barry Hawkins
> All Things Computed
> site: www.alltc.com
> weblog: www.yepthatsme.com
>
> Registered Linux User #368650
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFCLBEQ7bZ6kUftWZwRAjy9AJ9w/3vI0YTHHB4D3RJFBN9yWUKLIACeK/M3
> nl6gRFyAyq/y9dplKQjWES0=
> =/J60
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: