Am Freitag, 10. September 2010, 21:59:47 schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 19:22 +0200, Ulf Winkelvos wrote:
On 10.09.2010 19:07, Christoph wrote:
On Friday, 10 September 2010, 17:40:35 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
It looks like in this case the content of the portable zip is identicaly (just about) to the content of the deb, just that the debs are arch-specific.
That describes the situation very well. Moreover, the debs contain a .desktop and a .png file, whereas the zip file does not, and the zip version looks for the configuration file in some sub-sub-subfolder, not in /etc.
Christoph
You should consider option 4, like Philipp suggested, until then i don't see how option 2 should be any better than option 3.
Ulf
You mean besides the fact that 'debs are evil-er than zips'?
Something about that 'data' folder is really bad =)
For the time being I have uploaded a PKGBUILD based on option 3. According to Philips suggestion I am going to ask upstream for a source tarball not needing eclipse to build, but I am not very optimistic. I think that if they had wanted to issue such a tarball, they would already have done so. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try. Thanks for all your replies and suggestions. Cheers, Christoph