[epp-dev] Re: repository discussion - epp+galileo or galileo-only

[Markus Knauer <mknauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

DONE...

I changed both, the .project file *and* the directory name in CVS. Therefore it may be a good idea to check out the features again.

Regards, Markus

2009/4/30 Markus Knauer <mknauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

There are many conventions out there. I usually use the same ID for the plugin *and* for the feature and this is the reason why I add a "-feature" at the end of the project name. I don't know why I didn't follow my own conventions here and added a ".feature" at the end of the feature ID.

Anyway - yes, I can change the project names of the features to be the same as the feature ID.

Regards, Markus

2009/4/30 Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>

I found one additional thing that makes the automation a bit more difficult then it needs to be. For the features, you are using a project name (and CVS folder) that is different from the feature ID. Is there any particular reason for this or can we change that too?

Example:
Feature ID: org.eclipse.epp.package.java.feature
Project: org.eclipse.epp.package.java-feature

- thomas

Markus Knauer wrote:

1 - Yes, a patch would be wonderful.
2 - Maybe we can change it then ;-)

Thanks, Markus

2009/4/30 Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>

Markus Knauer wrote:

Hi Thomas,

1. - Should be easy to solve.

Is it OK if I provide a patch?

2. - Yes, there was a reason to do it that way... it was the only working configuration.
One problem was always that the application that we are running is (always) the same (org.eclipse.ui.ide.workbench), provided by the org.eclipse.platform feature. This is the reason why it is *included* in the product defining feature. But the product extension point definition lives in its own plug-in.

The normal approach would be - and here you are correct - to add the package content as a list of *included* features to the top-level feature (or to the .product file as a feature dependency). But in this case you cannot export the "definition only" to a p2 repository, you need to have the complete Galileo content somewhere in your target or in your workspace. This is something that I am trying to avoid, since it is IMHO easier to create metadata and as less as possible additional artifacts because we need this repo as an augmenting repo for the p2 director call only.

Does that help to clarify it a bit? If someone tells me a way to circumvent this - and this way is really working I am happy to change it.

It helps. But at the same time, I think the issue goes away if we put everything in Galileo. That way, there will be no need for any additional repositories. All you need is the installer.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren

-- 
Markus Knauer
EclipseSource
###   phone: +49 721 664 733 0  (GMT +1)
###     fax: +49 721 664 733 29
###     web: www.eclipsesource.com

Innoopract Informationssysteme GmbH
Stephanienstrasse 20, 76133 Karlsruhe Germany
General Manager: Jochen Krause
Registered Office: Karlsruhe, Commercial Register Mannheim HRB 107883