Aptana Studio is an Eclipse-based IDE for web 2.0 development, supporting natively javascript, php, ruby and their frameworks. Since I don't see any ebuild for Aptana, maybe someone can be interested in having it installed system wide, hence the ebuild I'm proposing I've tested only with xulrunner-bin-1.8 installed, so I'm not sure whether xulrunner from sources is installed there (/usr/lib/xulrunner) and I've set no use flags restriction on it. there's a bug for porting it to xulrunner 1.9 which will be the standard, so I'm proposing the -bin version over the source version of 1.8. There's no 64bit version for Aptana, as long as the authors suggest to use the Eclipse plugin for it. thank you if you're willing to test this.
Created attachment 193995 [details] dev-util/aptana-1.2.7.ebuild ebuild for version 1.2.7 of Aptana
I would say, we should stay with Eclipse plugin installation. Otherwise we'll have the whole Eclipse binaries in the system twice.
(In reply to comment #2) > I would say, we should stay with Eclipse plugin installation. Otherwise we'll > have the whole Eclipse binaries in the system twice. > true. but I think it's more a choice between the two. I prefer this one over eclipse because this is "dedicated" to web 2.0 development (js, php, ruby and so on and their frameworks) while I do see eclipse as too much for my needs.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > I would say, we should stay with Eclipse plugin installation. Otherwise we'll > > have the whole Eclipse binaries in the system twice. > > > > true. but I think it's more a choice between the two. > I prefer this one over eclipse because this is "dedicated" to web 2.0 > development (js, php, ruby and so on and their frameworks) while I do see > eclipse as too much for my needs. > Anyway, I still object to have a complete eclipse based IDE aside Eclipse SDK which is also binary only.
(In reply to comment #4) > > Anyway, I still object to have a complete eclipse based IDE aside Eclipse SDK > which is also binary only. > I think that's the reason why the eclipse plugin exists
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > > Anyway, I still object to have a complete eclipse based IDE aside Eclipse SDK > > which is also binary only. > > > I think that's the reason why the eclipse plugin exists > And that's why it shouldn't be a package but installed manually.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > > > > Anyway, I still object to have a complete eclipse based IDE aside Eclipse SDK > > > which is also binary only. > > > > > I think that's the reason why the eclipse plugin exists > > > > And that's why it shouldn't be a package but installed manually. > hehe but this isn't the eclipse plugin. This is the standalone version. consider it as a fork of Eclipse. This isn't Eclipse. Moreover the install procedure for this standalone version is a little bit complicated and filled with dependancies that *maybe* someone would prefer it as an ebuild. Secondly *maybe* someone may want it installed system wide for multiuser environments. I don't get why so many problems with this ebuild.
Created attachment 255435 [details] dev-util/aptana-2.0.5.ebuild New ebuild for version 2.0.5 (amd64 only) of Aptana.
Just installed this ebuild, and while it successfully installs; it does not copy/install the AptanaProfile.profile which is needed to install plugins. Manually copying the file from the src archive solved my problem. One thing to note is that I had to change permissions to allow Aptana to run outside of root. I created a separate devel group on my box and modified permissions accordingly.
This issue is very outdated, should be closed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 142049 ***
