eclipse-pydev: New upstream release 1.3.13 avaible

Derek Broughton news at
Mon Feb 18 20:54:51 UTC 2008

Nick Stinemates wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Kristian Rink wrote:

>> Much as I love apt, I am coming to the same realization.  I have a
>> project that really needs Eclipse 3.3, and there's little likelihood
>> we'll see it packaged for Hardy+1 at this point, let alone Hardy.
>> Similarly, I'm doing Plone development and have given up on Ubuntu being
>> anywhere close to the stable trailing-edge (_not_ the bleeding edge) of
>> Plone, and am now using the unified installer (got to learn buildout) and
>> easy_install.
> <rant>
> Well here's the problem.
> You both have 2 packages which mean something to you, and you seem to be
> technical enough. What's keeping you from packaging Eclipse 3.3? What's
> keeping you from packaging the latest 'trailing-edge' of Plone?
> That's right. Nothing is.

I'll have to assume you don't have a clue.  

1) Eclipse is actively maintained.  I happen to be aware of its status
_precisely_ because I went looking for 3.3 yesterday.  Its maintainer has
been promising packages since last summer.  It's a huge amount of work
(packaging isn't simple at the best of times, but Eclipse is not just one
package, it's _dozens_ - and you can't release just one of them), so I am
not faulting the Debian/Ubuntu maintainers - it's simply not possible to
keep up.  Plone is similar - in fact it's probably even more packages,
though smaller than Eclipse - with the added problem that it depends on
Python 2.4 when Ubuntu is on 2.5.  

2) That said, the issue is NOT actually getting a package - if I desperately
wanted a Plone package, I'd package up the "unified installer", which would
eliminate much of the problem of incompatible python versions: but that
would _still_ leave Plone outside the actual package system.  Lack of
up-to-date packages is not the problem - packages that don't integrate into
Ubuntu, and especially packages like Eclipse and all python products using
easy_install, that implement their own package control are the problem.
> If you had packaged these things, submitted to the dev team, and it's
> still not available -- that's an entirely different story and I
> apologize. Somehow I suspect that is not the case.
> </rant>

I am thoroughly aware of the work involved in packaging - I _have_ done it. 
Getting a package that works for me is a whole lot simpler than getting one
for all of Ubuntu, and I really don't need your entirely misplaced

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list