Markus Knauer wrote:
Yepp, these were my concerns in the call yesterday. I
don't want to make them 'visible' because there is no reason for a user
of Galileo to install a second product into one. In fact, it is
dangerous and could cause a lot of trouble.
There will be two distinct IU's. One for the package feature and one
for the actual product. The product will not be visible in the Update
Manager UI because it is not a feature.
I don't see any harm in making the package features visible (with or
without category). They should install without problems.
- thomas
Putting the additional metadata and the artifacts into the
Galileo repository - I cannot see the real advantage, in my experience
it sometimes helps to stay independent, but I don't have a strong
opinion on that.
Markus
2009/4/30 Pascal Rapicault <Pascal_Rapicault@xxxxxxxxxx>
Having the artifacts and metadata for each package in the
repository makes sense since they are part of what we officially
deliver for Galileo, and as such having everything in one repository
for our delivery simplify the reconsumption of what we have produced
and also makes it easy for us to track any issue (now or later) or use
one repo as input for the EPP Wizard.
However I don't think we need to categorize this content or make it
visible and this for two reasons: a) most users will already have a
product when they start, b) there is a p2 bug that if you install a
product over top of an existing one and then remove one or the other
you end up in broken state (and we don't have the time to fix this).
PaScaL
 David M
Williams ---04/29/2009 03:40:09 PM---> Open question: Does the EPP
project create its own repository or does
> Open question: Does the EPP project create its own
repository or does
it simply add content to the Galileo repository?
In the past, EPP just consumed what was in the Simultaneous Release
repository.
What would you be adding to it?
Are you suggesting something that would also be in the "categories"
users
would see?
And, a new category? Perhaps "Pre bundled packages" or something?
Off hand, I'd say we don't want those complications at this point ...
but,
I'm open to (concrete) suggestions and feedback from the rest of
cross-project group.
Thanks,
From:
"Ian Skerrett" <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"'Eclipse Packaging Project'" <epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
thomas@xxxxxxx
Date:
04/29/2009 02:45 PM
Subject:
[epp-dev] EPP Meeting Minutes
Sent by:
epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Attendees: Markus Knauer, Gabe O?Brien, Doug Schaefer, Peter Friese,
Nathan Gervais, Ian Skerrett, Henrik LInberg and Thomas Holgram
Action Items:
1. Ian to send an e-mail to the EPP mailing list that describes
what
the package maintainers need to do for their Galileo packages.
2. Markus to continue working on the manual step to create the
packages. The goal is that the M7 packages will be available for May 11
3. Gabe and Markus will continue to work on the scripts. Markus
will
first review the patch Gabe submitted for the script.
4. Henrik and Thomas to develop an automated build mechanism to
create the packages.
Open question: Does the EPP project create its own repository or does
it
simply add content to the Galileo repository?
Next Meeting:
May 6, 2009
11amET/5pmCET
1-613-287-8000
1-866-362-7064
Passcode: 880932
Ian Skerrett
Director of Marketing
Eclipse Foundation
613-224-9461 ext. 227
blog: ianskerrett.wordpress.com
twitter: https://twitter.com/ianskerrett
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
|
