[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[cdt-dev] RE: [cdt-patch] patch for 95110 - extract GNU builddefinitions totheir own plugin
|
Cross posting this to cdt-dev as the EPL issue has implications for
everyone...
> o The about.html file specifies EPL whereas the other
> CDT plugins that I checked still specify CPL. Is
> that OK? FYI: the new refactoring plugins
> don't have an about.html. Should they?
AFAIK everything was supposed to transition over to the EPL for this
release, but if you'd rather it be CPL I can change it. Eclipse is
currently EPL...
> o GnuPlugin.java (I suggest GnuUIPlugin.java) did not
> have a copyright statement. Should Chris add an IBM
> copyright since this plugin.xml is extracted from code
> with an IBM copyright? Or should he add a TI
> copyright using the same "style"?
Doh... didn't have my template setup at the point when it generated the
code. I'll fix it.
> o Chris, how are you creating the patch? I was unable
> to apply it using Team -> Apply Patch. It was easy
> to try this patch by hand, but you need to create your
> patch with Team -> Create Patch, or I'll need to learn
> how to apply your patches...
I create them with WinCVS. As far as I know they should just work...
I've been able to use them at the command line using "patch" before just
fine. Maybe the Eclipse client doesn't like the first couple of lines
of output from WinCVS?
I can't use Eclipse to generate the patches because I can't use CVS
through the HTTP proxy using Eclipse (the pserver port is firewalled).
I've been trying to get the Team guys to add proxy support for pserver
for 2 years now to no avail (and trying to get the IT bureaucrats here
to open up the pserver port on the firewall for just as long).
I will fix the copyright issue and generate a new patch. I'll strip off
any extra WinCVS crap and hopefully then it will work for you. If
anyone has any further insight into how I can massage the patch to make
Eclipse like it, please let me know.
P.S. Vote for https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9149 and
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=87918
___________________________________________
Chris Recoskie
Software Designer
IDE Frameworks Group
Texas Instruments, Toronto
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-patch-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-patch-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Treggiari, Leo
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:43 PM
> To: CDT patches and commits are posted to this list.
> Subject: RE: [cdt-patch] patch for 95110 - extract GNU
builddefinitions
> totheir own plugin
>
> Hi Chris and Doug,
>
> I've thought about the name, and I'd like to name the
> new plugin:
>
> org.eclipse.cdt.managedbuilder.gnu.ui
>
> There could be an
> org.eclipse.cdt.managedbuilder.gnu.core later.
>
> Here are a couple of other things I noticed:
>
> o The about.html file specifies EPL whereas the other
> CDT plugins that I checked still specify CPL. Is
> that OK? FYI: the new refactoring plugins
> don't have an about.html. Should they?
>
> o GnuPlugin.java (I suggest GnuUIPlugin.java) did not
> have a copyright statement. Should Chris add an IBM
> copyright since this plugin.xml is extracted from code
> with an IBM copyright? Or should he add a TI
> copyright using the same "style"?
>
> o Chris, how are you creating the patch? I was unable
> to apply it using Team -> Apply Patch. It was easy
> to try this patch by hand, but you need to create your
> patch with Team -> Create Patch, or I'll need to learn
> how to apply your patches...
>
> If everyone is happy with my name suggestion, could you,
> Chris, generate a new patch?
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-patch-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cdt-patch-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Recoskie, Chris
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 11:20 AM
> To: CDT patches and commits are posted to this list.
> Subject: RE: [cdt-patch] patch for 95110 - extract GNU
> builddefinitionsto their own plugin
>
> Actually I'd rather not drop it because the guts of the GNU makefile
> generator etc. are still in managedbuilder.core, and I think people
> would get confused and look for them in the new plugin if we don't
spell
> out that this plugin is strictly for the definitions.
>
> Whatever you guys think though. It is easy enough to change.
> ___________________________________________
>
> Chris Recoskie
> Software Designer
> IDE Frameworks Group
> Texas Instruments, Toronto
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-patch-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cdt-patch-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Douglas Schaefer
> > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 11:10 AM
> > To: CDT patches and commits are posted to this list.
> > Subject: Re: [cdt-patch] patch for 95110 - extract GNU build
> definitionsto
> > their own plugin
> >
> > Actually, can we drop the buildDefinitions from the name of the
> plugin. I
> > think managedbuilder.gnu should be enough.
> >
> > Also, once Leo gets the managed builder bits in I'll apply the
feature
> > patch and add the plugin to the build scripts.
> >
> > Thanks, Chris.
> > Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
> > Ottawa Lab, IBM Rational Software Division
> >
> >
> >
> > "Recoskie, Chris" <crecoskie@xxxxxx>
> > Sent by: cdt-patch-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 05/13/2005 09:28 AM
> > Please respond to
> > "CDT patches and commits are posted to this list."
> >
> >
> > To
> > <cdt-patch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > [cdt-patch] patch for 95110 - extract GNU build definitions to
their
> own
> > plugin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > These patches address the Bugzilla request 95110:
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=95110
> >
> > The GNU build definitions for Managed Build will be extracted to a
new
> > plugin, org.eclipse.cdt.managedbuilder.buildDefinitions.gnu
> >
> > ___________________________________________
> >
> > Chris Recoskie
> > Software Designer
> > IDE Frameworks Group
> > Texas Instruments, Toronto
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-patch mailing list
> > cdt-patch@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-patch
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-patch mailing list
> cdt-patch@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-patch
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-patch mailing list
> cdt-patch@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-patch
