[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [p2-dev] inclusion rules

Thanks Pascal, that's what I thought but your explanation made sure I
did not miss something! :)

-----Original Message-----
From: p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Pascal Rapicault
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 6:03 PM
To: P2 developer discussions
Cc: P2 developer discussions; p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [p2-dev] inclusion rules

You are correct, the STRICT rule is implicitly added to every IU added
to a ProfileChangeRequest (PCR#addInstallableUnits()).
You usually only have a few IUs that carry this property. For example in
the case of the SDK only the IU org.eclipse.sdk has it, and then of
course everything that the user installs (I mean the thing that he
selects in the UI becomes a root).
This property is used to tell the resolver what it MUST install and keep
satisfied at all cost. Consequently if a group includes another group
and it is marked root as well, then removing the top level group will
not cuase the removal of the other group. This has always been the case
and model the way the user reason since he/she does not care about the
dependencies composing your system. For example, when I install GMF,
then install GEF the installation of GEF will be a no-op except that GEF
will mark it as root. If I try to remove GEF, it will be a no-op since
GMF uses it (it will only remove the root flag). If I try to remove GMF
it will not remove GEF but remove all the gmf bundles.

So in short what you get is the expected behavior.



Inactive hide details for "Haigermoser, Helmut" ---10/16/2009 10:59:07
AM---Ciao P2 :)"Haigermoser, Helmut" ---10/16/2009 10:59:07 AM---Ciao P2

"Haigermoser, Helmut" <Helmut.Haigermoser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>	

"P2 developer discussions" <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>	

10/16/2009 10:59 AM	

[p2-dev] inclusion rules	

Ciao P2 :)
I'm hunting a bug in our installer and traced issues back into a "weird"
Turns out the profile contains "STRICT" inclusion rules for non-root,
non-group IUs. 

So, what's the policy with strict rules, does a STRICT inclusion rule
for an IU indicate it has been part of the change request that triggered
it's installation? It's effect is quite clear, IUs with that propery set
cannot implicitely be removed (e.g. by removing their group IU), but now
that I saw the rules for such non-group IUs in place I wonder if there
is more to that rule than meets the eye?

Ciao, hh
p2-dev mailing list