Re: [linuxtools-dev] Eclipse Build 0.6.0?

[Niels Thykier <niels@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2010-08-10 22:33, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 August 2010, at 9:52 am, Andrew Overholt wrote:
>> * Matt Whitlock <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-08-09 21:19]:
>>> After bringing all the dependencies up to date and jumping through the usual hoops, I get hit with this:
>>
>> :)  Is there something you propose to make "the usual hoops" less
>> arduous?
> 
> Currently, the Gentoo ebuild goes through these steps to build Eclipse:
> 
> 	[...]
> 	4. Strip the building of libgnomeproxy from build.xml on x86 if the user has the "gnome" USE flag disabled.

I believe it should be fairly easy to make a patch for this to allow a
property to disable the building of libgnomeproxy. If you are interested
in it, feel free to file a bug against LinuxTools and assign me to it
(as I recall I wrote the libgnomeproxy part).

> 	5. Strip the building of the SWT native libraries from build.xml since SWT is installed independently on Gentoo.

I could be interest in e-b supporting this as well. There has been some
interest in doing something similar in Debian. Feel free to file a bug
and assign me to this one as well and I will look into a similar solution.

> 	6. Remove from the feature.xml files all the plugins that are for platforms (os, ws, arch) other than the host platform.

I thought eclipse did not build those plugins in the first place if they
are not for the relevant host platform?

> 	7. Remove the doc plugins if the user has the "doc" USE flag disabled.
> 	8. Remove the source plugins if the user has the "source" USE flag disabled.

Could be interesting to support as well, though I wonder if the missing
doc plugins may cause problems when building other eclipse based packages.

> 	[...]
> 	10. Apply the two patch files that are attached, in addition to the iterators.patch that I sent previously.

I have no clue what the hamcrest patch does, so I wont comment on that,
but the gtk_makefile.patch, I like the idea of it adding support for
LDFLAGS, but I am not sure I agree with the removal of the -g compiler
flags (don't know about the -s flag).
  Perhaps we should allow a variable to configure it (defaulting to have
them present to avoid breaking current setups) - it would also allow our
users to pass distro specific CFLAGS as well without having to do patches.


> 	[...]
> 	13. Create the launcher script and the desktop menu entry.

Do you have a template you use for it? Perhaps we can use it in e-b to
ease the work for people with similar needs.

> 
> The modified build process described above is the culmination of at least 40 hours of my own work.  Finding all the little things that need to be tweaked throughout the XML files and developing the scripts to do the tweaking took a tremendous amount of work.  My conclusion is that the Eclipse build process is a nightmare.  If it weren't for your efforts with Eclipse Build, building Eclipse would be completely impossible for anyone lacking intimate internal knowledge of PDE Build, Equinox, and P2.
> 

Perhaps we can convince you to spent a little more time to help us make
it a little more sane :)

~Niels


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAkxh0DkACgkQVCqoiq1Ylqzo+wCg2TtF9TFk1s32aJYOSEASQ94J
WnwAmwT/LpDHSio6hcX+IcNNqRJqAc3k
=Xi67
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----