Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Eclipse Projects » Eclipse Platform » Update Site Issues in Eclipse 3.5
Update Site Issues in Eclipse 3.5 [message #337054] Fri, 24 July 2009 17:20
Troy Nichols is currently offline Troy Nichols
Messages: 28
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
Hello!

We have a project that consists of one feature containing about 20
plugins and we would like to provide an update site for distributing
patches to users. We have recently migrated the whole project from
Eclipse 3.3 to Eclipse 3.5, and have run into some issues with the p2
provisioning system, regarding how to make the update site work.

So I have 3 questsions:

1. Are there any disadvantages to NOT using a p2 update site? Can we
continue to use the classic update site format (i.e. just site.xml +
features and plugins dirs) without any trouble, or is it a better idea
to just jump right into a p2 update site? What are some
advantages/disadvantages, if any?

2. We currently have a standalone installer that installs the product
into a so-called "extension location", which is linked to an eclipse
instance via .link files. It seems that post 3.4, update manager/p2
does not support installing updates into extension locations (see:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=224145). Has anyone else
run into this problem? Is there some workaround to get this to work?
Can the provisioning system be extended to allow us to manage
installation locations as developers?

3. Each time we build the product in our automated build process, the
plugins/feature get a new qualifier version (e.g. 1.5.0.200907241000).
So if we update only one plugin (which in turn causes the containing
feature version to be bumped up, let's say from 1.5.0 to 1.5.1), is
there some way to configure the update manager to ignore differences in
the qualifier, such that if it finds version 1.5.0.200907241000
installed on the system and 1.5.0.200907265000 available on the update
site, it will NOT download the changes? In other words, I only want the
update manager to be aware of the a.b.c versioning, not the a.b.c.dddd
versioning. Or is this something that I need to enforce in the
configuration of the feature?

Thanks for any advice on any of these topics!

Troy Nichols
Previous Topic:Modifying plugin.xml
Next Topic:Workbench layed out incompletely after restoring a view
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Apr 20 16:08:25 EDT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.09535 seconds