|Subject:||Eclipse 3.4 / Ganymede|
|From:||Mike Bowie (mbo...@buzmo.com)|
|Date:||Jun 25, 2008 5:04:23 am|
User ken wrote:
Go ahead, Mike!! Does it run on jdk16 or on jdk15/16?
And 3.4 would better replace current 3.3.2 eclipse-devel if it does not cause
much problems to 3.3.2 users. It is because that eclipse depends on
mozilla/seamonkey, etc. And 3.3.2 maintenance may need some retroactive works
with those which may not be so productive as -devel port. If we need 3.3.2, I
think that it needs to be maintained apart from -devel port.
Quick update... I've migrated about 80% of the previous patches to the release build, but haven't got so far as to actually compile anything yet. I'd hoped to get something at least test-worthy by the time ganymede drops (tomorrow) but clearly I've left it too late.
At this point I should be able to finish the existing patches tomorrow afternoon, then focus on seeing what other changes it will need in order to build.
The build instruction don't look to have changed since early in 3.x, so they still cite jdk1[4|5|6], but based on Ken's work on 3.2 and 3.3, I'm currently assuming jdk1[5|6] is required.
It would seem that I'm unable to make a post without bringing up old issues... and this time is no exception.
1) Upstream commits. *So* much of this patching is just adding simple FreeBSD references into all the build.xml files... it sure would be nice if we could *at least* get the build tags pushed upstream. Failing that, we're just going to keep burning man-hours patching or maintaining scripts to do the job. Per the build notes, there are a number of "Unsupported Platforms" included in the build system... right now, that would put FreeBSD ports way ahead of where it is now. Does anyone know of someone on the Eclipse team that might be able to lend a hand? I think Dan mentioned he might a while back... any leads on that? (I myself have a chap I'll get in touch with in the next few days.)
2) Port naming etc... I'm not sure that anyone really made a call on maintaining previous versions etc. I'm not sure that I see a problem with having a few versions in the tree, as long as it's made clear that the latest version is the only developed version... if someone has a special interest in a dated release, I'd imagine the community as a whole would benefit. How about bringing new releases into the tree with either their version number or release name? "java/eclipse-europa" or "java/eclipse34". If a pkg-message is included with older releases, at least people can choose. (Or if they're bound by a plugin or something.)
With a bit of luck, I'll have something worth playing with in the next day or two. If luck isn't on my side, I'll have a tarball of recycled patches someone else can play with. ;-)
-- "You don't see FreeBSD developers sitting in a smoke-filled room plotting the overthrow of Microsoft. We sit in light, airy rooms and plot where to get the best drinks." - Michael Lucas