| 1 |
On Saturday 28 November 2009 22:18:06 Chuck Robey wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alan McKinnon's response, below, seems to be telling me that I really |
| 3 |
> should go ahead and try to use the binary from the eclipse site, and not |
| 4 |
> to worry about getting into dependency problems with portage. Normally, |
| 5 |
> most package tools from any OS get truly destructive if you fail to their |
| 6 |
> tools ONLY, so I was hoping to find some way to effectively lie to |
| 7 |
> portage, keep portage from getting upset. Seeing as I've gotten no advice |
| 8 |
> on how to hoodwink portage, I just went ahead and used the 3.5.1 (x86-64) |
| 9 |
> version of their Linux(x86-64) binary eclipse package, and it's working |
| 10 |
> just fine. I had to get the sun-jdk installed (portage at least didn't |
| 11 |
> offer me any problems here) and (at least until I run into more eclipse |
| 12 |
> packages) it all seems to be working. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
eclipse, netbeans, android-sdk and a few other development environments come |
| 16 |
with their own maintenance environments. If you install them into /usr/ they |
| 17 |
might cause some trouble (but this is most unlikely) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If you install them into ~/ (where just you can use them) or /usr/local/ |
| 20 |
(where all users can use them), then you are almost certain to not cause any |
| 21 |
problems whatsoever. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
There is no need to try to fool portage in any way. All you are doing is the |
| 24 |
exact same principle as using Firefox to manage it's own plugins and |
| 25 |
extensions, just on a larger scale. This is why you got no responses on that |
| 26 |
matter - you are concerned about problem that does not exist. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives