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