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