eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

rocktale · 2015-07-21 18:55:35

Since today there appears to be an update to Eclipse in the official repositories. However, the structure of the packages has changed. For some reason, I have to choose between eclipse-java and eclipse-cpp (CDT) since they are both in conflict. However, up till now I was totally fine installing the regular eclipse package together with CDT since I require Eclipse support for java as well as cpp. Does eclipse-cpp include (basic) JAVA support as well? Or should I install eclipse-java and get CDT from the marketplace?

Thanks and best regards,
Karsten

nomorewindows · 2015-07-21 20:00:45

Trying to ignore eclipse-* and still being needed to select between eclipse-cpp and eclipse-php.

Potomac · 2015-07-21 22:56:58

rocktale wrote:

Or should I install eclipse-java and get CDT from the marketplace?

it seems the best solution, install inside eclipse the CDT plugin, no need to have a special package for that,

you can use the "install new software" dialog menu in eclipse, and add this url for the repository :

http://download.eclipse.org/tools/cdt/releases/8.7

https://eclipse.org/cdt/downloads.php

Last edited by Potomac (2015-07-21 22:58:14)

rocktale · 2015-07-23 16:19:25

I'd still like to know, what the difference between the three versions is. Apparently there is no way anymore to install a plain version of eclipse? Or is eclipse-java supposed to be the plain version? And if so, why isn't it labeled that way? Being an eclipse user for its flexibility (with different languages) I find the new packaging very irritating. Especially since there appears to be no explanation whatsoever - even the wiki article appears to have no idea why.

But maybe I'm just spoiled after several years of arch linux...

cro · 2015-07-24 13:10:54

Same problem here.
Why are eclipse-java and eclipse-cpp in conflict? It doesn't make sense. Looks like a bug.
The packages don't even declare each other as conflicting.

EDIT: I filed a bug report. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/45761

Last edited by cro (2015-07-24 14:09:30)

Scimmia · 2015-07-24 13:29:59

cro wrote:

EDIT: I filed a bug report. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/45761

And closed. Please do a search before filing bug reports.

cro · 2015-07-24 14:16:42

Scimmia wrote:

cro wrote:
EDIT: I filed a bug report. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/45761
And closed. Please do a search before filing bug reports.

I searched before filing, obviously the default search setting is "only tasks with open status", so I missed the closed one.
I find your reason ("packages include conflicting files") questionable. Can't this be avoided by building the packages differently and putting common files in the common package?

This makes the eclipse-cpp (and eclipse-php) packages unusable for me. Maybe I will try the workaround from above.
Does it really make sense to offer separate eclipse packages if you can't install them together??

Scimmia · 2015-07-24 14:23:01

You my find my reasoning questionable, but it's the way it is. This is how upstream is releasing them, so this is how Arch is packaging them.

cro · 2015-07-24 15:46:05

Scimmia wrote:

You my find my reasoning questionable, but it's the way it is. This is how upstream is releasing them, so this is how Arch is packaging them.

Well, then give the reason "upstream".

nbd · 2015-07-26 14:37:48

But why the package 'eclipse' is suggested to be replaced with 'eclipse-java' and not with 'eclipse-common'? Did upstream decide to be "less multilanguage"? Could someone advise please how to upgrade the 'eclipse' package ('4.4.2 Luna') to 'eclipse-common' so that all settings are preserved? (I don't need Java plugins in Eclipse).

Raynman · 2015-07-26 17:32:56

Well, older version of the Eclipse wiki page said the 'eclipse' package came with support for Java development (and that's how I remember it from using Eclipse for Java a couple of years ago). So maybe you always had the Java plugins installed, but now you get to choose to remove them and use eclipse-common only?

nbd · 2015-07-26 18:01:43

That's probably as it is. Thanks for the advise. I'll install eclipse-java then, and remove the Java-related content if it's removable.

nomorewindows · 2015-07-26 18:22:33

Installing either eclipse-* will automatically install eclipse-common, but would eclipse-cpp include eclipse-java? Eclipse-cpp is the bigger of the two.

dphoyes · 2015-07-29 17:33:39

This seems to summarise what is included with each version: https://eclipse.org/downloads/compare.php?release=mars

Looks like neither of eclipse-cpp or eclipse-java is a superset of the other.

Potomac · 2015-07-31 14:04:32

That's why it's better to install C++ or php plugin with the "marketplace way" inside eclipse ( the "install new software" dialog menu in eclipse ), if you want to use both java and C++ languages with eclipse.

Last edited by Potomac (2015-07-31 14:11:59)

vonPalitroque · 2015-08-01 17:09:04

Potomac wrote:

That's why it's better to install C++ or php plugin with the "marketplace way" inside eclipse ( the "install new software" dialog menu in eclipse ), if you want to use both java and C++ languages with eclipse.

This is an unacceptable proposition.

It implies that EVERY USER in the computer needs to perform this operation in order to utilize the IDE with both Java and C/C++ instead of having a global install. Not only this bloats the user's home directory, it also wastes space in /home with duplicate components. Having a global package installed like it was before is a better solution in my opinion.

Cheers.

Last edited by vonPalitroque (2015-08-01 17:09:41)

nomorewindows · 2015-08-01 20:56:39

vonPalitroque wrote:

Potomac wrote:
That's why it's better to install C++ or php plugin with the "marketplace way" inside eclipse ( the "install new software" dialog menu in eclipse ), if you want to use both java and C++ languages with eclipse.
This is an unacceptable proposition.
It implies that EVERY USER in the computer needs to perform this operation in order to utilize the IDE with both Java and C/C++ instead of having a global install. Not only this bloats the user's home directory, it also wastes space in /home with duplicate components. Having a global package installed like it was before is a better solution in my opinion.
Cheers.

This definitely isn't the arch way.

vonPalitroque · 2015-08-01 21:15:19

nomorewindows wrote:

This definitely isn't the arch way.

Sorry, I do not quite follow.

The Arch Way wrote:

Packages are only split when compelling advantages exist rather than it being the norm. Splitting is only done to save disk space in particularly bad cases of waste.

It seems to me that my suggestion does follow The Arch Way. With these conflicting packages, every user is forced to install CDT and whatever else they wish in their home directory in order to be able to use Eclipse with C/C++ and any other languages they wish to utilize. I suppose that if you are the unique user of your system, this is acceptable, but it is most definitely not acceptable in multi-user systems, especially if every user has a quota on their home directory.

Cheers.

Last edited by vonPalitroque (2015-08-01 21:15:28)

nomorewindows · 2015-08-01 21:25:03

vonPalitroque wrote:

nomorewindows wrote:
This definitely isn't the arch way.
Sorry, I do not quite follow.
The Arch Way wrote:
Packages are only split when compelling advantages exist rather than it being the norm. Splitting is only done to save disk space in particularly bad cases of waste.
It seems to me that my suggestion does follow The Arch Way. With these conflicting packages, every user is forced to install CDT and whatever else they wish in their home directory in order to be able to use Eclipse with C/C++ and any other languages they wish to utilize. I suppose that if you are the unique user of your system, this is acceptable, but it is most definitely not acceptable in multi-user systems, especially if every user has a quota on their home directory.
Cheers.

The marketplace thing isn't the right way, but your'e right on. I should've split the quotes up.

ewaller · 2015-08-01 22:44:20

nomorewindows wrote:

This definitely isn't the arch way.

That may be, but with some packages (Eclipse, emacs) it works better. Eclipse is an extreme case. Adding things from the Maretplace only impact the user doing it -- not really an anti Arch thing to do. Actually, I always install all of Eclipse as a user to my home directory from sites on the Internet. Always. That is not the un-Arch way either -- just don't go installing things outside of the /home tree...

Of course, I've been known to build and install my own kernel by hand too. but that is a different story....

Potomac · 2015-08-03 00:28:26

vonPalitroque wrote:

I suppose that if you are the unique user of your system, this is acceptable, but it is most definitely not acceptable in multi-user systems, especially if every user has a quota on their home directory.
Cheers.

probably 90% of people who use archlinux are the unique user of the PC, so it's a false problem, marketplace seems the easy way to install a plugin in eclipse

vonPalitroque · 2015-09-07 17:02:25

Potomac wrote:

probably 90% of people who use archlinux are the unique user of the PC, so it's a false problem, marketplace seems the easy way to install a plugin in eclipse

Yeah, and probably 80% of statistics are made up as well. The argument is invalid. In any case, instead of arguing about semantics or what should be done, here is a PKGBUILD that performs a global install of CDT using what is given in the marketplace. At the very least, this works in my system. Whoever is interested, feel free to use it, modify it or whatever.

# Contributor: Orlando Arias <oarias <at> knights <dot> ucf <dot> edu>

pkgname=eclipse-cdt
_basever=8.6
pkgver=${_basever}.0
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="Eclipse CDT plugin from marketplace"
arch=('any')
url="https://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/eclipse-cdt-cc-development-tooling"
license=('EPL')
depends=('eclipse-java')
provides=('eclipse-cpp')
conflicts=('eclipse-cpp')
replaces=('eclipse-cpp')
source=("http://download.eclipse.org/tools/cdt/releases/${_basever}/cdt-${pkgver}.zip")
sha256sums=('81b7d19d57c4a3009f4761699a72e8d642b5e1d9251d2bb98df438b1e28f8ba9')


package() {
	cd "${srcdir}"
	
	install -d \
		"${pkgdir}/usr/lib/eclipse/dropins/cdt-${pkgver}/eclipse/"{features,plugins,binary}
	install -m644 features/* \
		"${pkgdir}/usr/lib/eclipse/dropins/cdt-${pkgver}/eclipse/features/"
	install -m644 plugins/* \
		"${pkgdir}/usr/lib/eclipse/dropins/cdt-${pkgver}/eclipse/plugins/"
	install -m644 binary/* \
		"${pkgdir}/usr/lib/eclipse/dropins/cdt-${pkgver}/eclipse/binary/"
}

Cheers.

Last edited by vonPalitroque (2015-09-07 17:06:31)

nicovell3 · 2015-09-14 23:23:32

vonPalitroque wrote:

here is a PKGBUILD that performs a global install of CDT using what is given in the marketplace. At the very least, this works in my system. Whoever is interested, feel free to use it, modify it or whatever.

# Contributor: Orlando Arias <oarias <at> knights <dot> ucf <dot> edu>

pkgname=eclipse-cdt
_basever=8.6
pkgver=${_basever}.0
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="Eclipse CDT plugin from marketplace"
arch=('any')
url="https://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/eclipse-cdt-cc-development-tooling"
license=('EPL')
depends=('eclipse-java')
provides=('eclipse-cpp')
conflicts=('eclipse-cpp')
replaces=('eclipse-cpp')
source=("http://download.eclipse.org/tools/cdt/releases/${_basever}/cdt-${pkgver}.zip")
sha256sums=('81b7d19d57c4a3009f4761699a72e8d642b5e1d9251d2bb98df438b1e28f8ba9')


package() {
	cd "${srcdir}"
	
	install -d \
		"${pkgdir}/usr/lib/eclipse/dropins/cdt-${pkgver}/eclipse/"{features,plugins,binary}
	install -m644 features/* \
		"${pkgdir}/usr/lib/eclipse/dropins/cdt-${pkgver}/eclipse/features/"
	install -m644 plugins/* \
		"${pkgdir}/usr/lib/eclipse/dropins/cdt-${pkgver}/eclipse/plugins/"
	install -m644 binary/* \
		"${pkgdir}/usr/lib/eclipse/dropins/cdt-${pkgver}/eclipse/binary/"
}

Cheers.

Why don't you upload that pkgbuild to aur? When I saw it, I ran into aur to look for it and have it installed through yaourt.
Please, upload it to aur.

Jristz · 2015-09-15 18:17:02

I tried upload it but aparently someonther already take ounership of eclipse-cdt, so for now I will wait the 24 to see if upload something, else something is wrong here.

vonPalitroque · 2015-09-19 15:39:31

nicovell3 wrote:

Why don't you upload that pkgbuild to aur? When I saw it, I ran into aur to look for it and have it installed through yaourt.
Please, upload it to aur.

Since I do not have the time to maintain it, there is no point on me submitting the PKGBUILD to the AUR just for it to be orphaned straight away. Hence Why I listed myself as "Contributor" and not "Maintainer".

Jristz wrote:

I tried upload it but aparently someonther already take ounership of eclipse-cdt, so for now I will wait the 24 to see if upload something, else something is wrong here.

This is likely because eclipse-cdt was the name of the old package, which the new eclipse-cpp aims to replace. It may still be cached somewhere, not sure.

Arch Linux

#1 2015-07-21 18:55:35

eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#2 2015-07-21 20:00:45

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#3 2015-07-21 22:56:58

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#4 2015-07-23 16:19:25

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#5 2015-07-24 13:10:54

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#6 2015-07-24 13:29:59

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#7 2015-07-24 14:16:42

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#8 2015-07-24 14:23:01

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#9 2015-07-24 15:46:05

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#10 2015-07-26 14:37:48

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#11 2015-07-26 17:32:56

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#12 2015-07-26 18:01:43

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#13 2015-07-26 18:22:33

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#14 2015-07-29 17:33:39

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#15 2015-07-31 14:04:32

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#16 2015-08-01 17:09:04

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#17 2015-08-01 20:56:39

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#18 2015-08-01 21:15:19

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#19 2015-08-01 21:25:03

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#20 2015-08-01 22:44:20

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#21 2015-08-03 00:28:26

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#22 2015-09-07 17:02:25

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#23 2015-09-14 23:23:32

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#24 2015-09-15 18:17:02

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

#25 2015-09-19 15:39:31

Re: eclipse-java vs. eclipse-cpp

Board footer