Setting up Eclipse

[Andrew Overholt]

Hi,

* Charles Curley <charlescurley at charlescurley.com> [2007-03-15 23:18]:
> I'm trying to set up Eclipse 3.2.2 on my laptop. The first problem I
> hit is that the locations available for saving extensions are all in
> root territory, /usr/share and /usr/lib. So of course as a non-root
> user I can't write to them. Is there a location for local storage of
> extensions? No, that would be too easy.

Actually, we carry a patch in our Fedora Eclipse packages to enable
users to install into ~/.eclipse.  It should be transparent to a user
who attempts to install something via an update site.  For those playing
along at home, you'll be interested to note that this patch is finally
getting applied upstream since Windows Vista apparently doesn't like
non-root/administrator users writing to application directories ...
fancy that :).

> OK, I can add to the list of extension locations. I click on that, and
> get a list of directories in my home directory. No .directories show,
> e.g. .eclipse, etc. Great.

You shouldn't need to do this, but okay.

> So I built the whole tree by hand, selected it, and Eclipse insisted
> on restarting. Someone please tell the developers that this is not
> Windows.

:)  Take that up with upstream.

> I then started looking for extensions. Again. For each repository,
> Eclipse wants to know, again, my preferred mirror. Is there any reason
> Eclipse can't salt that information away in a properties file?

I'm confused as to what you're trying to do.  However, note that the
update manager is being completely re-written.  It was written in the
early days of Eclipse and hasn't aged very well.  I'm sorry that this
isn't comforting right now but it will be fixed in the future.

> Is everything in Eclipse this brain-damaged user hostile? Is this a
> test designed to limit Eclipse users to uber-geeks?

Can you elaborate on what you were trying to install?  I'll see if I can
duplicate your problems.  Note that due to the nature of our java stack,
plugins you install with the update manager don't have the benefits of
corresponding natively-compiled .sos so you may notice performance
issues with them.

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20070320/836187ae/attachment-0001.sig>