On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 07:11:16PM -0500, Billy Biggs wrote: > Shaun Jackman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Keeping SWT and Eclipse in different source packages allows the two > > packages to be maintained independently, which I think is a major > > plus. For one, this allows SWT to be patched without having to rebuild > > Eclipse and vice versa. An autoconf'ed SWT tarball that includes the > > complete build script really would be ideal. > > There's also a subtle difference between the SWT included with Eclipse > and the standalone SWT. The Eclipse SWT .jar files are made as Eclipse > plugins, with the .so files embedded in the jar to be extracted by osgi, > and required to be in a certain location on the file system, etc.
That is already done in m debs so my swt debs can be used for Eclipse and other applications like Azureus. > However, the source is the same, and Eclipse is robust enough that if > you fix a bug in SWT it likely should be done for Eclipse too, and that > there's already work done for compiling SWT as part of the Eclipse build > process. Thats definitely a plus. And SWT is included in Eclipse source tree anyway. At least currently. I wonder if upstream ever wants to change this. If not we should just build SWT and Eclipse from one source. All other gives more trouble then we all want. Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
