Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Orbit composite repository and discoveryU

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> The second question is: Will Orbit take actions
to provide us with a
> composite repository in the near future? Or at least with a single
> URL that does never change?

I am slow to respond to some of these complex issues
... because when I read them, in my mind they often sound like "David,
will you do more work for us?" :)  Of course, I know that is
not the intent. They are legitimate questions and important issues and
requests and wish I did have more time to work on them. I'm sure we all
do. Many issues have been discussed to death (but, don't give up on them!)
and maybe even some proposals made ... but there is a reason that the proposals
are not done. No one has stepped forward to do the work. So, I have updated
the Orbit bug that makes this repo request, bug
289092, to explicitly ask for volunteers
and suggest an approach that could be done independently by someone that
would not need to even understand the currently sloppy, complex Orbit build
scripts. So, read the bug, and have at it. 

As for the 'requires' vs. 'includes' vs. 'line up'
discussions, that problem is a couple of orders of magnitudes larger than
a little Orbit repo ... so is way over my head to even know how to start,
and I will leave up the "experts", as some have asked. Good luck.
[Though, I do suspect a bugzilla is the best place to carry on those discussions
... and suspect there are some, somewhere.]

Thanks, 





From:      
 Eike Stepper <stepper@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:      
 02/03/2011 02:41 AM
Subject:    
   [cross-project-issues-dev]
Orbit composite repository and        discoveryURL
Sent by:    
   cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Hi,

In the recent thread "Orbit build qualifiers changing with each build"
I proposed not to *include* Orbit features any longer, but rather reference
them (for example through the discovery URL element in the feature.xml).
Nobody commented on that, so I would like to bring it up again as a separate
thread. Thomas said, it's not Buckminster that creates the dependency ranges
as [x,x]. I still don't know who's responsible for these dangerous dependencies
and I feel like the more important question is:

     Is it generally good to *include* things that we've not
built ourselves?

An example: The CDO build needs EMF but of course we don't *include* EMF
in our repositories because EMF is already available in their own repositories.
We only say that we *need* EMF [x,y) and all goes fine. Orbit also has
its own repositories, so why do I have to *include* their stuff?

I'm not yet able to say whether the discoveryURL mechansim is adequate
to *reference* Orbit features. Regardless what mechansim could do that,
I'd like to hear if there are general objections and why.

The second question is: Will Orbit take actions to provide us with a composite
repository in the near future? Or at least with a single URL that does
never change?

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev