why I think SWT should be built from eclipse

[Matthias Klose]

Shaun Jackman writes:
> 2005/10/14, Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de>:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:21:49PM -0600, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> > > Why I think SWT should be built from its own source package:
> > >
> > >   * SWT is a library in itself, and can and does exist outside of Eclipse.
> >
> > It doesnt exist yet. There are no separate releases.
> 
> True, at present there are no well-supported source releases of SWT.
> Although, at one point Billy Biggs indicated this might change.

please don't talk about vapourware, it's not released. point.

> > >   * SWT is used by other applications besides Eclipse.
> >
> > Sure and thats no problem. But Eclipse is tied to the same release of
> > SWT.
> 
> That's fine. The Eclipse and SWT package can move in unison.

As you see, it's a maintainance burden, I don't see 3.1.1 packages.

> > >   * If SWT were in the same source package as Eclipse,
> > >     a RC bug in Eclipse would hold up SWT.
> >
> > If the RC were in the SWT package it will hold up itself too.
> > There is a good chance that Eclipse RC bugs will be solved in time as
> > we will group-maintain it to put the work on several shoulders,
> 
> If the RC bug in Eclipse is non-trivial, no amount of group
> maintenance will help get it cleared up in time. Consider, for
> example, a FTBFS bug in GCC that prevents Eclipse, but not SWT, from
> building. This exact situation is currently holding SwingWT back. At
> present, the best solution was to ask the FTP master to remove SwingWT
> from testing so that SWT could migrate without it.

crap, no, that's not an argument. you can just build a subset of
packages for some architectures.

> > > If Eclipse needs patches applied against the released version of SWT,
> > > then they should be so applied. This does not require maintaining an
> > > entirely separate copy of SWT in Eclipse. Likewise for the security
> > > argument. Do not maintain a private copy of the library; rather, use
> > > the shared copy.

Ok, I'll file a bug report, severity serious, that you apply these
patches to the archive. Do _you_ know, which patches these are? Can
_you_ maintain them? Are _you_ willing to maintain them?

> > That is what we wanna do. Provide the SWT from Eclipse as shared copy.
> > Eclipse can use it because it includes the special stuff for it and
> > other applications like azureus can use it that need the normal SWT.
> 
> We agree all packages should use the same binary of SWT. However, this
> binary may be provided by a standalone SWT. Eclipse need not maintain
> its own copy.

sorry, again, you are wrong. _you_ are maintaining your own copy.

> > The copy of SWT in Eclipse needs to get into the archive anyway as its
> > part of Eclipse.
> 
> SWT may be in the Eclipse source package, but it need not be built.


Shaun, I get the impression, that you stick to this package for no
obvious reasons (besides the current issue of eclipse still targeted
to contrib). Please consider joining the Java maintainers and
maintaining the swt-gtk packages from one source.

  Matthias