[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [epp-dev] Re: repository discussion - epp+galileo or galileo-only
|
Thomas,Marcus,
If you are going to have a chat about the 'startEPP35.sh' script that
builds the EPP packages I would like to be in on that as I have been
investing some time into working on that script.
gO'
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Great. Thanks!
Do you have a skype ID or are you on-line on an IRC channel? It would
be great to be able to communicate so that we don't do double work.
- thomas
Markus Knauer wrote:
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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <http://www.eclipsesource.com>
Innoopract Informationssysteme GmbH
Stephanienstrasse 20, 76133 Karlsruhe Germany
General Manager: Jochen Krause
Registered Office: Karlsruhe, Commercial Register Mannheim HRB 107883
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
