Re: [p2-dev] difference between "Check for updates" and "Install new sof

[Susan Franklin McCourt <susan_franklin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>However, when
>a user installs the base feature and child features explicitly as
>top-level features, check for updates will fail (even though install
>new software will succeed).

What is the failure?  Are you saying updates are not found, or that an error is reported about the compatibility of the child features with the parent feature? It sounds like a bug to me.

susan

Andrew Eisenberg ---10/19/2009 10:05:01 AM---Hi all,

Andrew Eisenberg <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 10/19/2009 10:04 AM Please respond to andrew,P2 developer discussions

To: P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> cc: Subject: [p2-dev] difference between "Check for updates" and "Install new software"

Hi all,

I am encountering a problem with p2 and "check for updates".  Before
raising a bug, I wanted to discuss to see if this really is a bug, or
just a "feature", and if there is any reasonable work around.

I have an update site with a base feature that includes several child
features.  When someone installs the base feature only and then later
performs a "Check for updates", newer versions of the base feature and
child features will be found and installed no problem.  However, when
a user installs the base feature and child features explicitly as
top-level features, check for updates will fail (even though install
new software will succeed).

I could just hide the child features (ie- mark them as "uncategoried")
and they will not appear in the update manager (unless "show
uncategorized features" is selected).  The problem with this is that
some users legitimately want to install only one or more of the child
features.

Another possibility is to add a warning in the description, something
like "Don't install child features X, Y, and Z if you are also
installing the parent feature.  But, I doubt that most users would
follow the instructions (I know I never read the description box).

So, my question is: Is this a p2 bug?  Or is it working as designed?
If it is not a bug, what is a reasonable workaround in this situation?

thanks,
--a
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev