[aur-general] The Arch Way

[Günther Wutz]

Xmind uses the graphic toolkit from eclipse afaik. I think thats the
problem, because the Eclipse toolkit does not come with Java.

Am Freitag, den 10.09.2010, 16:50 +0100 schrieb Magnus Therning:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 16:44, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder at lavabit.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-09-10 17:40:35 +0200:
> >> On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 10:16 -0500, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Christoph <chrdr at gmx.at> wrote:
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > I have just adopted the package xmind
> >> > > (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22394) because the former maintainer
> >> > > disowned it, and I am not shure which is the best way to build the package.
> >> > >
> >> > > There are three possibilities:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1) Building from source
> >> > > 2) Building from the "Portable" zip-file (see http://www.xmind.net/downloads/)
> >> > > 3) Building from the deb-files provided for Debian/Ubuntu (see
> >> > > http://www.xmind.net/downloads/)
> >> > >
> >> > > ad 1)
> >> > > This is what you would usually do, but according to
> >> > > http://groups.google.com/group/xmind-dev/browse_thread/thread/d68d0c8f30b4b42c
> >> > > the eclipse ide would be a prerequisite, so that would need a very large
> >> > > download if you do not already have installed eclipse (nearly 170 MB for
> >> > > eclipse plus 10 MB for the xmind source code!)
> >> > >
> >> > > ad 2)
> >> > > This was the way the former maintainer went. Download size: 75 MB
> >> > > The portable zip-file contains both the 32-bit and the 64-bit versions, so the
> >> > > PKGBUILD just had to copy the right files.
> >> > >
> >> > > ad 3)
> >> > > When I proposed (a year ago) to use the deb-files instead in order to have
> >> > > smaller downloads (each of them, 32-bit and the 64-bit has appr. 36 MB), the
> >> > > maintainer told me that this would be ugly and "not the Arch way", that he
> >> > > would not do such a thing. When I told him that I did not get the point of it,
> >> > > since the zip file equally just installed ready-built binaries, he did not
> >> > > respond to it.
> >> > >
> >> > > I still think that using the deb-files would - in this special case - be the
> >> > > best option. But of course I would never dare to deviate from "the Arch way"
> >> > > (since it is the way to world domination, as we all know ;-)).
> >> > >
> >> > > What do you think?
> >> > >
> >> > > Christoph
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I always prefer a package build from source, but if it's provided in a
> >> > portable zip, that is a valid option in this instance. I would say go
> >> > with option 2.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers!
> >>
> >> 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. I'd think its simpler to just go with option 3. Its
> >> surprising that any project REQUIRES eclipse to build though, eclipse
> >> can generate makefiles which can be shipped with source....
> >
> > That's why I'd go with option four, kindly ask upstream to fix this.
> 
> What exactly is eclipse used for here (I'm completely ignorant, having never
> used eclipse myself, so please enlighten me)?
> 
> Would it be an option to perform the step requiring eclipse and ship the
> result as a patch with the source?
> 
> /M
>