[cross-project-issues-dev] New "repository reports"

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Just in time for Indigo ... or way early
for Juno, depending on your perspective  ... I've been working on
consolidating some of the "releng tests" that some projects use,
and that are occasionally used in isolation for the Simultaneous Release.
For the results on the latest staging repo, see 

http://build.eclipse.org/indigo/simrel/

I know most of these report will be
too late to do much good for Indigo (I would not suggest mass updates,
just to correct plugin names, for example) but some of them are important
for Indigo.  I'd suggest everyone take a look at the first four: 

Bundles
missing required files 
This report lists bundles and features that are missing
important, required files. It looks directly at jars in the common repository.
(Currently, does not check those "trusted repositories" we point
to via composite indirection). Missing legal files are usually considered
a "stop ship" issue, since Eclipse is well known for its IP quality.
Unsigned
bundles 
This report lists bundles and features that are that are
not signed. Pretty serious issue, though there are a few exceptions. (well,
only one code exception is known ... see below).
Bundles
not using 4 part versions 
To have p2 update correctly and OSGi to resolve bundles
as expected, it is essential that bundles and features use the required
4 part versioning rules. Every build.
Consistent,
current licenses (SUA) in features 
Check to make sure features use the current, correct license.
The report also lists features in repository with no license (SUA) in the
content metadata. This report uses the repository's content metadata, instead
of the jar files themselves, in contrast to the "missing files"
report, above. Both are important to be correct, as different parts of
Eclipse code use one or the other to present information to the user depending
on the task.


Some bugs have been opened a few weeks
ago on some of these issues in Indigo, and these reports are just an initial
attempt to get this testing centralized, and ran more frequently and automatically.


I've opened a bug already to discuss
errors in these initial reports: 

Bug 347882
- Improve Software Repository Reports  

You can suggest improvement there too
... but, be forewarned ... what we really need are volunteers to do the
work, not to make suggestions :)