|
|
|
| Re: Import-Package and feature requirements [message #381342 is a reply to message #381339] |
Mon, 01 December 2008 08:11   |
|
Markus Kuppe wrote:
> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>> Hi Marcus,
>> It's impossible to resolve based on package names alone when there is no
>> scope in which the resolution takes place. There's just no way to
>> convert a package name (or names) into a repository location.
>>
>> So the answer is yes, you must have a feature that defines the
>> resolution so that the plug-ins that provide the needed packages are
>> included.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thomas Hallgren
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I don't see a different whether my feature includes or requires a
> bundle. Both define the full bundle name.
>
There is a difference and it matters in this case:
If you say that your feature *includes* a bundle, then that bundle will
be installed (materialized) when the feature is installed.
If you say that your feature *requires* a bundle that means that the
feature cannot be installed unless the target platform (TP) fulfils the
requirement. The feature will *not* install the required bundle.
Expressing a TP requirement is not sufficient if your objective is to
define a scope for package resolution that goes beyond what's already
installed in your TP + your feature inclusions. If your TP however
includes the required bundles, then the resolution should be OK.
- thomas
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Import-Package and feature requirements [message #381415 is a reply to message #381413] |
Mon, 01 December 2008 08:52 |
|
Markus Alexander Kuppe wrote:
> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>
>> There is a difference and it matters in this case:
>>
>> If you say that your feature *includes* a bundle, then that bundle will
>> be installed (materialized) when the feature is installed.
>>
>> If you say that your feature *requires* a bundle that means that the
>> feature cannot be installed unless the target platform (TP) fulfils the
>> requirement. The feature will *not* install the required bundle.
>>
>> Expressing a TP requirement is not sufficient if your objective is to
>> define a scope for package resolution that goes beyond what's already
>> installed in your TP + your feature inclusions. If your TP however
>> includes the required bundles, then the resolution should be OK.
>
> In my case the TP is empty and BM is supposed to materialize it so the
> feature can be build. I don't understand why BM cannot use the feature's
> requirements (and maybe even the .target) in order to create the TP.
> Just so I don't have to list the requirements redundantly in a cspex [1].
>
>
BM would violate the contract if it were to materialize the
requirements. The sole reason for separating requirements from
inclusions is to be able to create features that has prerequisites on
the TP so that not all features need to be self sufficient. A feature
with unfulfilled requirements is supposed to fail when installed, not
download and install what it is missing. You have two options:
1. Make your current feature include everything that it will need, or
2. Create another feature that a) includes your current feature and b)
includes all the TP components that your current feature will require
but does not include.
- thomas
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03293 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
