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 and I was kinda shocked that the package seems a bit outdated. 3.4 is the 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