| Feature version suffix not working in update site [message #36413] |
Tue, 09 December 2008 09:56  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
My gut is telling me that this is likely an issue with Update Manager,
but I figure I'd start here since PDE generates the suffix. This may be
related to bug# 89428.
We use Eclipse 3.3 to build our product using PDE Headless Build. One of
our features had the following name:
com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.0.v200810150440-43-_kE77cA7A Q7MM7
After a fix cycle, it's name is now:
com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.1.v200812032300-430_kE77cAE7 IEI77
The difference worth noting is the character combination of "-_" in the
first name. The new name has "0_" in its place.
The new feature version is not handled well by Update Manager. It looks
for "com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.1.v200812032300-430" in
the local site, instead of "com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature". Hacking a bit,
we manually updated the feature's version to
com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.1.v200812032300-43-_kE77cAE7 IEI77
(replacing the 0 with a hyphen before the underscore) and that worked.
Seems like something in update code likes to see a hyphen before the
underscore character in the qualifier.
Anyone know what's going on?
Thanks,
Alej.
|
|
|
| Re: Feature version suffix not working in update site [message #36498 is a reply to message #36413] |
Tue, 09 December 2008 17:14  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Alejandro Bascuas wrote:
> My gut is telling me that this is likely an issue with Update Manager,
> but I figure I'd start here since PDE generates the suffix. This may be
> related to bug# 89428.
>
> We use Eclipse 3.3 to build our product using PDE Headless Build. One of
> our features had the following name:
>
> com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.0.v200810150440-43-_kE77cA7A Q7MM7
>
> After a fix cycle, it's name is now:
>
> com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.1.v200812032300-430_kE77cAE7 IEI77
>
> The difference worth noting is the character combination of "-_" in the
> first name. The new name has "0_" in its place.
>
> The new feature version is not handled well by Update Manager. It looks
> for "com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.1.v200812032300-430" in
> the local site, instead of "com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature". Hacking a bit,
> we manually updated the feature's version to
> com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.1.v200812032300-43-_kE77cAE7 IEI77
> (replacing the 0 with a hyphen before the underscore) and that worked.
> Seems like something in update code likes to see a hyphen before the
> underscore character in the qualifier.
>
> Anyone know what's going on?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alej.
>
>
>
>
Please ignore this. We found the source of the problem.
Alej.
|
|
|
| Re: Feature version suffix not working in update site [message #586705 is a reply to message #36413] |
Tue, 09 December 2008 17:14 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Alejandro Bascuas wrote:
> My gut is telling me that this is likely an issue with Update Manager,
> but I figure I'd start here since PDE generates the suffix. This may be
> related to bug# 89428.
>
> We use Eclipse 3.3 to build our product using PDE Headless Build. One of
> our features had the following name:
>
> com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.0.v200810150440-43-_kE77cA7A Q7MM7
>
> After a fix cycle, it's name is now:
>
> com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.1.v200812032300-430_kE77cAE7 IEI77
>
> The difference worth noting is the character combination of "-_" in the
> first name. The new name has "0_" in its place.
>
> The new feature version is not handled well by Update Manager. It looks
> for "com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.1.v200812032300-430" in
> the local site, instead of "com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature". Hacking a bit,
> we manually updated the feature's version to
> com.ibm.bbp.desktop.feature_1.1.1.v200812032300-43-_kE77cAE7 IEI77
> (replacing the 0 with a hyphen before the underscore) and that worked.
> Seems like something in update code likes to see a hyphen before the
> underscore character in the qualifier.
>
> Anyone know what's going on?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alej.
>
>
>
>
Please ignore this. We found the source of the problem.
Alej.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03107 seconds
Home