1 |
Chuck Robey schrieb: |
2 |
> I was checking to see what version of eclipse seems to have a portage package, |
3 |
> and I was kinda shocked that the package seems a bit outdated. 3.4 is the |
4 |
> current portage package, but eclipse has been at 3.5 for a good while now. |
5 |
> Seeing as the eclipse website has a linux binary 3.5+ package, unless I've |
6 |
> overlooked something available from gentoo (I would be overjoyed to have made |
7 |
> that mistake) then I'm going to be forced to see how to coax portage to allow me |
8 |
> to use that eclipse site binary package to sub for ALL eclipse packages. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Anyone know how to get portage to make externally supplied binaries to supply |
11 |
> portage eclipse dependencies? All of the huge number of eclipse plugins can be |
12 |
> done without using portage just fine, but the eclipse itself, that I would |
13 |
> really rather use a portage ebuild for installation. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
While I totally buy into the whole package managing and distribution |
18 |
system and consider it the best thing since sliced bread, I suggest you |
19 |
make an exception for eclipse. |
20 |
|
21 |
The problem is that eclipse contains its own package management for its |
22 |
plugins. This doesn't work very well with a global installation in /opt |
23 |
or /usr where a normal user should not have write rights. |
24 |
|
25 |
It is much better to have every user download and install eclipse into |
26 |
their home-directories. This has the advantage that every user can |
27 |
contain its own set of plugins and extensions. |
28 |
|
29 |
I personally have several versions of eclipse installed: One for J2EE |
30 |
and a much leaner version for C++. Having one version with all plugins |
31 |
would make eclipse unbearably slow. |
32 |
|
33 |
Hope this helps |
34 |
Florian Philipp |