[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Agenda for tomorrow's call?
|
Hi Martin
With respect to your first item, I'm
not sure what the problem is. The warnings in update manager about
unsigned jars are just information for the user - there is no impact on
the functionality of eclipse itself. Signed and unsigned jars can
certainly co-exist in the same eclipse installation. As additional
Europa projects start signing their jars, the number of warnings
you'll see when updating will decrease.
As for the bug you mention, I think
Andrew and John are working with you to resolve the root cause.
Kim
"Oberhuber, Martin"
<Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
12/19/2006 03:10 PM
Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "Cross project issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Agenda
for tomorrow's call? |
|
Hi Kim,
thanks a lot for the reference
to Platform-releng-signedbuild.
Tremendously helpful indeed.
With respect to packing &
signing Europa, I'm afraid that not only developers but also users are
concerned:
- My understanding is that when
you grab something from an update site, and some features are signed but
others not, you'll have to accept many dialogs informing you that some
features are not signed [this is from hearsay, didn't test myself though].
So it appears that signing Europa is an all-or-nothing matter.
- I've experienced cases where signed
& packed bundles simply could not be retrieved from the update site.
Yes I agree this needs to be analyzed and fixed, but are we OK if some
bundles on Europa just cannot be consumed yet by Java 1.5 clients because
of sign & pack issues? The following may be particularly hot:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=168583
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kim
Moir
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:42 PM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Agenda for tomorrow's call?
Descriptions of the scripts that the platform teams uses for signing are
here
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/JAR_Signing
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Platform-releng-signedbuild
We have been using packed jars since early 2006. We have been using
signed bulds since shortly after 3.3 M3. As is the case with the
implementation of any new technology, there are bugs that will arise and
need to be worked through. Having a larger number of teams packing
and signing their jars will result in a more solid implementation that
accounts for a broader range of use cases.
Kim
"Oberhuber, Martin"
<Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
12/19/2006 08:02 AM
Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "Cross project issues"
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [cross-project-issues-dev] Agenda for
tomorrow's call? |
|
Hi all,
do we have a (Wiki based?) agenda for tomorrow's call?
The one item that I'd like to discuss is the usage of pack200 & sign
for the Europa site.
* Should we all pack & sign already?
* Where are the scripts for pack & sign that the platform is using?
We've had bad problems with pack200 and signing, especially when nested
jars are involved. My feeling is that signed-and-packed jars are not yet
ready for general consumption. See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=163421
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=168344
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kim
Moir
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 6:35 PM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] added 3.3M4 feature versions to
Europa
I've added our 3.3M4 features to org.eclipse.europa.tools/build-home/features-ep.xml.
Since the Europa "Should Do" item #5 mentions the need to provide
SDK features, I've included the SDK feature in the list of features to
be copied to the update site.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Europa_Simultaneous_Release#Must_Do
Given this point, has the starting zip has changed for Europa? With
Callisto, I made a page each milestone that listed all the platform runtimes
to download for inclusion on the Callisto site. Is the starting point
for users who download Europa projects with update manager going to be
the platform runtime zip or the SDK? I recall last time that there
were some concerns with advising people to start with the SDK because it's
a larger download which consumes more bandwidth and many people don't use
the source anyways.
Kim_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev