| Update Site Issues in Eclipse 3.5 [message #337054] | 
Fri, 24 July 2009 17:20  | 
 
Eclipse User  | 
 | 
 | 
   | 
 
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
 |  
 |  
  | 
Powered by 
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04929 seconds