Xmind uses the graphic toolkit from eclipse afaik. I think thats the problem, because the Eclipse toolkit does not come with Java.
Am Freitag, den 10.09.2010, 16:50 +0100 schrieb Magnus Therning: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 16:44, Philipp Überbacher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-09-10 17:40:35 +0200: > >> On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 10:16 -0500, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > >> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Christoph <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > I have just adopted the package xmind > >> > > (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22394) because the former > >> > > maintainer > >> > > disowned it, and I am not shure which is the best way to build the > >> > > package. > >> > > > >> > > There are three possibilities: > >> > > > >> > > 1) Building from source > >> > > 2) Building from the "Portable" zip-file (see > >> > > http://www.xmind.net/downloads/) > >> > > 3) Building from the deb-files provided for Debian/Ubuntu (see > >> > > http://www.xmind.net/downloads/) > >> > > > >> > > ad 1) > >> > > This is what you would usually do, but according to > >> > > http://groups.google.com/group/xmind-dev/browse_thread/thread/d68d0c8f30b4b42c > >> > > the eclipse ide would be a prerequisite, so that would need a very > >> > > large > >> > > download if you do not already have installed eclipse (nearly 170 MB > >> > > for > >> > > eclipse plus 10 MB for the xmind source code!) > >> > > > >> > > ad 2) > >> > > This was the way the former maintainer went. Download size: 75 MB > >> > > The portable zip-file contains both the 32-bit and the 64-bit > >> > > versions, so the > >> > > PKGBUILD just had to copy the right files. > >> > > > >> > > ad 3) > >> > > When I proposed (a year ago) to use the deb-files instead in order to > >> > > have > >> > > smaller downloads (each of them, 32-bit and the 64-bit has appr. 36 > >> > > MB), the > >> > > maintainer told me that this would be ugly and "not the Arch way", > >> > > that he > >> > > would not do such a thing. When I told him that I did not get the > >> > > point of it, > >> > > since the zip file equally just installed ready-built binaries, he did > >> > > not > >> > > respond to it. > >> > > > >> > > I still think that using the deb-files would - in this special case - > >> > > be the > >> > > best option. But of course I would never dare to deviate from "the > >> > > Arch way" > >> > > (since it is the way to world domination, as we all know ;-)). > >> > > > >> > > What do you think? > >> > > > >> > > Christoph > >> > > > >> > > >> > I always prefer a package build from source, but if it's provided in a > >> > portable zip, that is a valid option in this instance. I would say go > >> > with option 2. > >> > > >> > Cheers! > >> > >> It looks like in this case the content of the portable zip is identicaly > >> (just about) to the content of the deb, just that the debs are > >> arch-specific. I'd think its simpler to just go with option 3. Its > >> surprising that any project REQUIRES eclipse to build though, eclipse > >> can generate makefiles which can be shipped with source.... > > > > That's why I'd go with option four, kindly ask upstream to fix this. > > What exactly is eclipse used for here (I'm completely ignorant, having never > used eclipse myself, so please enlighten me)? > > Would it be an option to perform the step requiring eclipse and ship the > result as a patch with the source? > > /M >
