1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 25 November 2009 19:20:43 Chuck Robey wrote: |
3 |
>> I need to get an up-to-date version of eclipse working on my gentoo |
4 |
>> box. First question is, is there a Galileo (3.5+) version of eclipse |
5 |
>> available as a portage package? I can't find it, so I'd really appreciate |
6 |
>> a pointer. The only thing I can see is a fairly old eclipse version (I |
7 |
>> think a year or more out of date). |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> Second question, at the eclipse website, I see a binary version of the |
10 |
>> latest Linux-eclipse (the version I'm after). If I *can't* get a portage |
11 |
>> package version of Galileo-eclipse, then if I install the binary package |
12 |
>> (non-portage) from the eclipse website, can I get (and how can I get) |
13 |
>> portage to consider this package as supplying any dependency which would |
14 |
>> be otherwise supplied by the latest (ganymede, 3.4+) portage version of |
15 |
>> the eclipse tool |
16 |
|
17 |
Several comments about answers here. First, to Marcus Wanner, yes, the first |
18 |
two eclipse packages work for 3.5, but they AREN'T eclipse, they are plugins for |
19 |
eclipse (plugins for what I really want). The 3rd is eclipse-sdk, the only one |
20 |
you don't cover and the only one I really need. Of course I know how to handle |
21 |
them, but without having eclipse itself, it's not useful. |
22 |
|
23 |
It *seems to me that Mark Knecht is telling me that there's no way the binary |
24 |
from the eclipse site would work, so he tells me how to install the two which do |
25 |
me no good. Again, this isn't helpful. The 3rd package is (in your own mail) |
26 |
still stuck at 3.4.x, and that's the real eclipse sdk. |
27 |
|
28 |
Alan McKinnon's response, below, seems to be telling me that I really should go |
29 |
ahead and try to use the binary from the eclipse site, and not to worry about |
30 |
getting into dependency problems with portage. Normally, most package tools |
31 |
from any OS get truly destructive if you fail to their tools ONLY, so I was |
32 |
hoping to find some way to effectively lie to portage, keep portage from getting |
33 |
upset. Seeing as I've gotten no advice on how to hoodwink portage, I just went |
34 |
ahead and used the 3.5.1 (x86-64) version of their Linux(x86-64) binary eclipse |
35 |
package, and it's working just fine. I had to get the sun-jdk installed |
36 |
(portage at least didn't offer me any problems here) and (at least until I run |
37 |
into more eclipse packages) it all seems to be working. |
38 |
|
39 |
If think that perhaps I can mask off everything from portage regarding any |
40 |
eclipse package, and maybe that will lessen my chances of having portage step on |
41 |
my system for me. This just occurred to me, and maybe it's the only thing I can do. |
42 |
|
43 |
> |
44 |
> Have you considered simply installing the binary eclipse into ~ and |
45 |
> maintaining it using the bundled eclipse tools? This removes portage out of |
46 |
> the equation entirely - no fooling around with *provided |
47 |
> |
48 |
> That is the method used by most Linux users and it's highly unlikely it won't |
49 |
> work - gentoo doesn't do weird things with where libs etc are stored. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Plus, you have the advantage of being to install plugins directly from eclipse |
52 |
> without having to become root and run emerge. It the same order of magnitude |
53 |
> as using Firefox to install it's own plugins. |
54 |
> |