[cross-project-issues-dev] AMP optional dependencies issue Re: Aggregato

[Miles Parker <milesparker@xxxxxxxxx>]

Groan. Good news is that my aggregator passed, bad news is that it includes stuff it shouldn't. So I have the answer to my question and the answer is that the aggregator *will* pull over plugins that haven't actually been requested. Thanks Martin for the bug report, I'm glad I'm not the only person who was surprised by this.

AMP will need to rebuild, and I'm left with a few options given that I need to provide the GEF3D plugins on the AMP site, but it shouldn't be part of the Indigo release proper, unless Wayne thinks we can get an exception for that. ;) (I have committer rights and I've fixed the simrel issues for GEF3D I think, but it isn't on Indigo release train.)

1. Remove the optional plugins, which will cause some inconvenience to end users but nothing show-stopping.
2. Try to discover some way to force aggregator not to include these optional plugins or to remove them from the built or deployed aggregator.
3. Only build the Indigo targeted feature itself and point the aggregator at that.

I'm inclined for option 3 but that means that the contents of the "Release" repos my project points to and what is included in the Indigo aggregator will be different only in version qualifiers. Wayne, would that be kosher?

cheers,

Miles


On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:33 PM, Oberhuber, Martin wrote:

> Hi Miles,
> 
> Optional dependencies being installed sounds like https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=247099
> 
> Thanks,
> Martin
> --
> Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect - Development Tools, Wind River
> direct +43.662.457915.85  fax +43.662.457915.6
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miles Parker
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:31 PM
> To: Cross project issues
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Aggregator / B3 / Buckminster Question
> 
> 
> I'm also thinking that perhaps I could simply exclude these bundles from the aggregator, but looking at the docs, it seems that you can *add* bundles and use Exclusion Rules to exclude *features*, but there doesn't seem to be any way to exclude plugins. And I'm not at all clear on why P2 would include these anyway. I always thought that the purpose of features was to provide a clear indication of what the user wants to install. Does anyone know why is P2 is adding optional stuff not included in the feature?!
> 
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Miles Parker wrote:
> 
>> OK, I've got AMP staged and it appears to be working but the signing report revealed an issue that I'm hoping people can give advice on...
>> 
>> I've got some plugins that have optional dependencies on stuff that will *not* be part of the Indigo release -- they're Eclipse hosted and IP ok, but the project isn't participating. My thinking was that that would work fine, but when I get the feature that I'm providing for Indigo from my release update site, P2 goes ahead and grabs the optional dependencies as well, and I then get a signing message. My *thinking* is that when the aggregator runs, P2 will *not* get those optional plugins unless of course the user has also added the AMP release update site separately. I won't be able to actually test that until the aggregator runs on my most recent build so I wanted to ask if my reasoning seems correct?
>> 
>> (My other alternative that I'm just trying now is to remove those optional dependencies, but that will mean users that then add those optional features may lose functionality.)
>> 
>> For buckminster folks, I'm wondering is I set the "eclipse.p2.optional" to "false" in the build will that make any difference as far as the provisioning time dependencies go? I'm guessing no..
>> 
>> As a side note, I'm trying to diagnose an issue -- somehow my other committer's changes in the last week have been lost in the git wilderness -- like gone, not even accessible in reflog. :( Unfortunately, he's in Central Europe, so it's unlikely that I'll be able to get him to try to recommit the changes. I've got an open bug with webmaster, so If I am somehow able to restore those important bits before the cutoff tonight, I may ask for a fresh build.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> 
>> Miles
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev