eclipse-pydev: New upstream release 1.3.13 avaible

[Kristian Rink]

Derek Broughton schrieb:

>> - Somebody used to working with Eclipse moves from Windows to Ubuntu
>> and discovers that Ubuntu In Its Undisputable Greatness already comes
>> with Eclipse in its repository. "apt-get install eclipse-sdk", and
>> things seem fine.
> 
> Hey, we must be looking for a name for Hardy+1 - IIUG works for me!

:]

> Perhaps what it really needs is for apt to be able to say, for any package
> with predictable directory structures, "Ah, there is a locally installed
> copy at version X, let's not install for now".  This would be fairly simple
> in the package install scripts, but difficult to do before downloading the
> software.

Oh yeah, equivs to the rescue. I guess this kind of approach indeed
could provide quite some goodness, in example while dealing with JDK/JRE
installations locally dumped to /opt/ for the sake of having current
packages installed. :) But that IMHO would end up in a serious problem:
How to deal with Eclipse, that way? Simply saying "Eclipse is
installed"? "Eclipse Europa is installed, including all the 21 projects
part of this general release along with all required and optional
enabling features"? Or rather "Eclipse 3.3 runtime is installed, along
with GEF <version>, WTP <version>, BIRT <version> and the appropriate
sources"? Let usage aside, I think finding a meaningful middle path here
is rather difficult.



> Whatever happened to the concept of reuse?  If Eclipse (and others) 
> would just use .deb formats, it would be a perfect world and 
> we'd all be happy (not to mention rich & beautiful).

Rich? Not talking 'bout beautiful, guess I missed something in here. ;)
But I guess it's not just about the .deb format, after all. From that
point of view, I guess the Eclipse approach is rather sane - provide a
common packaging system that is available on all platforms supported by
the IDE, including those featuring a rather strict package management
themselves (recent Linux distributions, maybe excluding
Slackware/Zenwalk) on one side, some proprietary Unices and MS Windows
(not talking about Microsoft Installer) on the other. Plus, considering
Java to be a platform (thus operating system) independent technology,
having a platform independent packaging format for Java seems a good thing.

Well, guess I'd better stop here, not to end up ranting all day and nite
about the shortcomings and inconveniences of OSGi, JSR 277, the NetBeans
module format, META-INF'ed .jar files, maven poms and the (so far)
inability of the Java world to actually create an interoperable,
generally approved standard of how to package and distribute code as
reusable modules... :/


> The project I mostly use Eclipse with is maven based.  That adds a whole new
> complication as it continually downloads gigabytes of java packages I
> already have from Ubuntu...

I know what you mean. :) Asides the fact that maven2 support is what
initially made me abandon Eclipse in favour of NetBeans 6: This is right
why I, despite all the other applications I do install using the Ubuntu
package manager, first thing in every Ubuntu installation I do so far is
to install a recent Sun JDK and place its bin/ in $PATH before /usr/bin.
  To me, maven2 so far is the best way of doing platform independent
package management in Java, and as long as I can have apt dealing with
my operating system, my desktop and all the stuff associated with that,
I bet I can live with having one package management for the "platform
dependent" world and one (inside of our projects, in example maven2 or
apache ivy) to easily be shared with my developing pals suffering from
Windows XP... ;)

Cheers & best regards,
Kristian



-- 
Kristian Rink * http://zimmer428.net * http://flickr.com/photos/z428/
jab: kawazu at jabber.ccc.de * icq: 48874445 * fon: ++49 176 2447 2771 "One
dreaming alone, it will be only a dream; many dreaming together is the
beginning of a new reality." (Hundertwasser)