[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Requires and Includes are two separate things, however one could expect that without required features things will also fail to compile. Why else would one require another feature.
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Scott Lewis
<slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Markus,
On 10/1/2010 9:55 AM, Markus Alexander Kuppe wrote:
On 10/01/2010 06:49 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:
I don't know....I'll fuss with trying that as soon as I can. I don't
immediately see how the requires in feature.xml would have anything to
do with the target platform contents though...and it appears to me that
target platform contents is the problem here (although I admit I don't
know why it was working previously).
Well, Bucky needs to know what to put into the TP. Without requires, how
should it know?
I thought that Bucky was explicitly *told* what the target platform should consist of (via the buckminster metadata files...whichever are appropriate).
In general, I don't think it's a good idea for Bucky to compute the target platform for a build from requires in features...as I think the requires in features should be the constraints on target runtimes (i.e. where ECF is to be installed)...that end up in the resulting p2 repository...rather than used to compute the target platform for compile.
So if the target platform *is* being computed via the feature requires I would like to change this in at least this build. I was/have been assuming that the target platform for our builds was being specified by the Buckminster meta-data files (cspecx, etc) and I think that would be better. I don't think we should have to add feature requires in order to build something...since it has deployment/p2 repo implications. I also think that having the target platform be computed via feature requires would/does result in a more brittle and error-prone build.
Ok...so I guess I need to know...what are the right additions (to cspex,
mspec, cquery and/or rmap) to include all of the ECF sdk (some
successful recent build from HEAD I guess) in the JMS target platform?
Don't we have some boilerplate for that (i.e. isn't it already like
that in some other builds)? If so just point me in that direction.
IMO it should not be necessary to change anything except the
feature.xml. The build used to work before the change to feature.xml.
Ok...I agree the build used to work...but it doesn't now...and I would like to separate the target platform specification from the content of the feature.xml (for reasons discussed above).
So...how does one set the target platform contents explicitly in the relevant Bucky metadata files (rather than feature requires)? I'm pretty sure this is possible...and I was obviously under the impression we were already doing it.
Scott
