[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [p2-dev] Unexpected resolution failure
- From: "Todorova, Katya" <katya.todorova@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:17:53 +0200
- Accept-language: en-US, de-DE
- Acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-index: AcyJpDT2F8u35asQTV6jD51QJv2XHAAAbwfA
- Thread-topic: [p2-dev] Unexpected resolution failure
>From user stand point I expect to install the highest "resolvable" version that is available in the repository, not the highest "exact". Motivation? Since I don't specify an exact version,
any version would be acceptable for me but I implicitly expect the highest (which could be resolved) to be preferred. I make an analogy here with OSGi import/export wiring when multiple
exported versions are available.
Currently "-installIU abc" tries to install the "exact" highest version and if its resolution fails, the whole installation fails. As Tobias suggested I could implement something on top of p2 -
for example I could traverse the repository on my own, sort available IUs by version in descendent order, look for the first resolvable in the list and then pass it to p2 engine.
Does the use case make more sense now?
So is there a way p2 director app to interpret 0.0.0 as version range instead of exact version and are you aware of scenarios that strictly rely on 0.0.0 = exact highest?
Thank you for your help,
From: p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pascal Rapicault
Sent: jeudi 13 octobre 2011 14:32
To: P2 developer discussions
Subject: Re: [p2-dev] Unexpected resolution failure
In the case of the p2 director, doing "-installIU abc" (without specifying a version) is a shortcut for saying install the highest version available of this IU.
Could you please describe from a user point of view the behaviour you are trying to get for the director app?
On 2011-10-13, at 6:04 AM, Todorova, Katya wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation, Tobias, I checked the bug comments as well (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=359902) and it started getting clearer.
> My confusion came from trying to map equinox and p2 resolvers behavior on 0.0.0.
> Back on the technical stuff - I think version range would do for my use case.
> Do you have any idea how to specify version range in director app? (curious if there is any documentation when p2 handles 0.0.0 as fixed version and when as range?)
> What is the use case(s) of using 0.0.0 as fixed version?
> Implementing my desired behavior outside p2 would mean re-implementing the planner :) I'm not sure I'd like to go in that direction. Just want to play around
> with what's currently available and try to come up with a decent solution.
> Thanks again,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberlies, Tobias
> Sent: jeudi 13 octobre 2011 11:35
> To: P2 developer discussions
> Subject: Re: [p2-dev] Unexpected resolution failure
> Katya Todorova wrote:
>> It seems that 0.0.0 is interpreted as [18.104.22.168109261256,
>> 22.214.171.124109261256] instead of [0.0.0, infinity) and p2 resolver doesn't
>> make an attempt to find a solution containing lower version.
>> Is that the expected behavior?
> 0.0.0 can be a version or a version range. 0.0.0 as version is a fixed version - the latest one available when querying a metadata repo, 0.0.0 as version range is an open version range.
> You need to know what you are specifying (version vs. Version range) to know the semantics.
> p2-dev mailing list
> p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev mailing list