eclipse-pydev: New upstream release 1.3.13 avaible
nick at stinemates.org
Tue Feb 19 05:59:41 UTC 2008
Derek Broughton wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
> 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
Snarkiness was definitely unintended.
I think for packages such as these, a generic way to install it in an
Ubuntu like fashion -- i.e, putting it in proper/guessable directory
structure -- is the draw to having it done through Synaptic.
I believe I misread the initial tone, and is definitely why I encased it
in <rant> tag's as well ;)
Nick Stinemates (nick at stinemates.org)
AIM: Nick Stinemates
MSN: nickstinemates at hotmail.com
Yahoo: nickstinemates at yahoo.com
More information about the ubuntu-users