Caesar wrote: > do you expect apt to be more reliable in installing eclipse and its > numerous plugins than eclipse itself? > > When I need my workspace on the clean machine I simply unpack my eclipse > installation with all its plugins. It is easier than installing > everything with apt and it is easier than fresh eclipse install and then > plugins install with internal installer. > > And I don't need to configure tons of tiny things for every plugin. > > Apt and eclipse can live together only when all plugins will have > their's own debs maintained by plugin's developers. In any other case > you'll have eventually install something through eclipse's internal > installer which is bad. Not because it's just bad but because you will > have two managers - apt and eclipse messing with the same software. You > will never be sure which way to use next time because one will work > better for one set of lugins and other will work for some other set, and > you will never know who's responsible of the failure - plugin creator, > eclipse, or repo package maintainer. > > You could make this same argument for Firefox with the myriad plugins, but it's still packaged. Some plugins with .deb packages and some as .xpi
There is a difference between the two in that the .deb packages are systemwide whereas the .xpi are for the user only. This was one of the main issues brought up earlier in this thread. A mutli-user system needs at least the base eclipse installation if not all the necessary plugins to be global so only one copy is needed on the system. -- Upgrade to Eclipse 3.4.2 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/123064 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-b...@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs -- universe-bugs mailing list universe-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/universe-bugs
