On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:15:07PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> I don't mind moving the eclipse ports from java to devel, but all the
> other eclipse ports are add-ins to eclipse and should probably be
> classified along with eclipse.
[adding freebsd-java to the Cc:]
For some background, there's been on-and-off discussion on -java
about how the java category was never really a good idea. None of
the other languages have their own primary category. In particular
we've completely failed to train our users to send 'java' PRs only
for problems with the JVMs and 'ports' PRs for things in ports/java.
> In particular, if eclipse is a 'devel' tool, I don't see how CDT
> and phpeclipse are editors. GEF isn't a graphics library, it's a
> graphical emulation framework for eclipse, which is (again) a
> development tool.
Well, Eclipse is one of these 'suites' that doesn't really fit well
in one particular category. You could make the same argument about
OpenOffice, opengroupware, ZendStudio, and so forth. (These 3 are
chosen deliberately because they're scattered in 3 different categories).
OpenBSD has a 'productivity' category although what it has in it is more
like our 'deskutils'. Perhaps we should consider co-opting that name?
(Our "deskutils" is a combination of things like calendar programs and
individual GNOME add-ons, so it's a little bit of a mixed bag. However,
I'm not sure I can see Eclipse fitting in with those).
There is also the fact to consider that at 1624 ports, devel is simply
too huge for its own good. Everything is in there including the
Even if we just went with an 'ide' category, there are still 27 ports
that would probably fit in there. Not a lot in my book (and I've always
been against anything that would lead us towards having hundreds of
categories), but I could see an argument for it, even so.
I'll leave the idea of completely reshuffling all the categories for
another time, since everyone is probably tired of listening to my own
particular views on that.