Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12


I realized there would be a big problem looking at the state of CVS last week.  All the affected parties I know of have been informed so hopefully each will take the prompt required action.


David M Williams wrote:

Yes, hiccough's all the time ... but doubt there's too many processes that milestone deadlines and PMCs could help with (Well, M6 is consider the end of version changes). The best way to address this is that suppliers and consumers communicate often, and if there's something controversial, to have meetings and discussions until its resolved. And in the worst case, do what Ed says. :)

But, I do agree with what I think you are saying, that each project should have one primary release for the Yearly release, and if they have clients that need some previous release, that would be handled "on the side" and not to try and have both in Helios. That might not always work, but to do otherwise takes a lot of skillful effort.

Ed, it appears this is a Modeling internal issue that needs to be resolved (quick). Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Likewise, let me know if I should just remove the components so it will no longer block the build from completing. For example, if it can't be resolved by, say Thursday, then I think they should be removed until the issue it resolved. I'm not sure what else that would "drag along", but fear it would be a lot ... such as GMF?! We are getting down to the wire on M4, with the platform finishing this Friday, and after that time, I'm sure we'll have our hands full with details, and this high level problem should be resolved by then ... or, at least, some resolution that allows M4 to complete. Perhaps other things could be done after M4, if there were other things to do.

Since Ed Willink didn't take me up on the cross-project posting, I'll CC that list with this note, so everyone knows the issue is being worked, but no clear resolution yet.

Let us know what you decide.


From: Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: aigdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Willink, Ed" <Ed.Willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Bruck <jbruck@xxxxxxxxxx>, kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx
Date: 12/08/2009 01:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12

Hi David

My recollection is that every year at about this time there is a major version number hiccough as projects catch up with each other. Is this any different? Perhaps Eclipse needs a policy that any major version increment after M1 needs PMC approval to get versions in place promptly. We should not be trying to guess where the problem is. Helios should 'know' that UML2 is 3.1.0, OCL is 3.0.0 and any build for any release train project that uses other than those should be identified, the offending reference can then be corrected promptly by the 'offender' without impacting everyone else.

Looking at the log file again, we don't need to guess:

[exec] Contains: Cannot satisfy dependency:
[exec] Contains: From: 1.0.0
[exec] Contains: To: [1.4.0.v200908201900-787D8aA3QRRgQbeUhZhdeHk89tD-]

The problem is that is using OCL 1.4.0M1b, even though OCL 1.4.0M2 is available. I think OCL 3.0.0M3 should fix the problem. Who is responsible for maintaining and what project does it belong to?

Regarding a cross-project posting, I'm afraid that I've done as much as I can at this point.

I'm not the project leader, I do not have releng access so cannot promote Sunday's stable OCL build that works with EMF's fixed I-build (MDT/OCL 3.0.0M3 is ok). I do not want to change project policy unilaterally.

While Ed Merks ( has come very close to instructing us to abandon 1.4.0 so that 3.0.0 is the only choice, and while I have never been enthusiastic about a 1.4.0 release, the rest of the OCL team was clearly in favour of a concurrent 1.4.0 release. Ed's comment was six days ago. Until at least one other member of the team indicates how they want to follow Ed's direction, I cannot reasonably issue cross-project statements that 1.4.0 is dead and 3.0.0 mandated, I can only indicate that as far as I'm concerned 1.4.0 is dead.



David M Williams wrote:

So, what's next?

I suggest you post to cross-project list for two reasons. 1. Keep everyone informed. 2. Someone might be able to help solve the problem.


From: Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: James Bruck <jbruck@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Willink, Ed" <Ed.Willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, aigdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx, David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx
Date: 12/07/2009 03:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12

Hi James

I'm not sure what '' is. I assume it's a p2-ism.

org.eclipse.ocl.uml-feature 3.0.0.qualifier has

    <import plugin="org.eclipse.uml2.uml" version="3.0.0" match="compatible"/>

which is [3.0.0,4.0.0).

I suspect that someone is trying to use OCL 1.3 or 1.4.



James Bruck wrote:

Hi Ed,

The error seems to indicate the following:

Cannot satisfy dependency: 2.0.0.v200901271800-3--7w311A19272741 depends on: org.eclipse.uml2.uml [3.0.0,3.1.0)

I think the problem is in the feature itself, not a plugin.


- James.

From: "Willink, Ed" <Ed.Willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: James Bruck/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, David Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Willink, Ed" <Ed.Willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, aigdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx, kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx, "Ed. Willink (ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 07/12/2009 10:21 AM
Subject: RE: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12

Hi James

I'm not 'at my desk' right now so cannot check which OCL plug-in has a
[3.0.0, 3.1.0) rather than [3.0.0, 4.0.0).
Assuming there is such a plug-in, I will do a CVS change to force a rebuild at 15:10ish EST with the changed range.

I don't have full releng privileges, so Alex may be able to do one sooner.

Do you actually need a build; surely it's just CVS you need updating? Which build of OCL are you using?


Ed Willink

From: James Bruck [mailto:jbruck@xxxxxxxxxx]
07 December 2009 15:09
David Williams
ed.willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; aigdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx; kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx
Re: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12

Hi Dave,

This has to do with UML2 moving up a minor version number for the first time in the release.   I believe that OCL has a version dependency on [3.0.0, 3.1.0)   (not inclusive) of UML but we are now at version 3.1.0.

I believe the OCL component would need to respond by changing the version range check.

I could temporarily back out those changes so Helios is fixed but I think the proper way to address this is for OCL to create another build with updated version range checking.


- James.
From: David Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: James Bruck/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: David Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 06/12/2009 03:54 PM
Subject: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12

The following errors occured when building Helios:

Software being installed: 1.0.0

Only one of the following can be installed at once: [org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.0.v20081007-1910, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.2.v200811051031, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.0.4.v200707131442, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.1.1.v200707311200, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.0.v200904241430, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.100.v200808270930, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.100.v200909221515, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.1.v200908281330, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.0.v200804231435, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.0.v200805051730, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.0.v200805141133, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.0.v200905151700, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.1.v200808251630, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.1.0.v200912041155, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.0.v200804291636, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.0.v20090407-1910, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.1.v200808191500, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.0.5.v200802262248]

Cannot satisfy dependency: 1.0.0 depends on: [1.4.0.v200908201900-787D8aA3QRRgQbeUhZhdeHk89tD-]

Cannot satisfy dependency: 1.0.0 depends on: [3.1.0.v200912041155]

Cannot satisfy dependency: 1.4.0.v200908201900-548_7EBJlGqKCLkKdLaMfM9 depends on: [2.0.0.v200901271800-3--7w311A19272741]

Cannot satisfy dependency: 1.4.0.v200908201900-787D8aA3QRRgQbeUhZhdeHk89tD- depends on: [1.4.0.v200908201900-548_7EBJlGqKCLkKdLaMfM9]

Cannot satisfy dependency: 2.0.0.v200901271800-3--7w311A19272741 depends on: org.eclipse.uml2.uml [3.0.0,3.1.0)

Cannot satisfy dependency: 3.1.0.v200912041155 depends on: org.eclipse.uml2.uml [3.1.0.v200912041155]

Cannot satisfy dependency: 3.1.0.v200912041155 depends on: [3.1.0.v200912041155]

Check the log file for more information:


Please consider the environment before printing this email.


Thales Research and Technology (UK) Limited DISCLAIMER: The information

contained in this e-mail is confidential. It may also be legally

privileged. It is intended only for the stated addressee(s) and access to

it by any other person is unauthorised. If you are not an addressee, you

must not disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use or rely on the

information contained herein. Such unauthorised use may be unlawful. We

may monitor all e-mail communications through our networks. If you have

received this e-mail in error, please inform us immediately on +44 (0)1293

575987 and delete it and all copies from your system. We accept no

responsibility for changes to any e-mail which occur after it has been sent.

Attachments to this e-mail may contain software viruses which could damage

your system. We therefore recommend you virus-check all attachments before

opening. The registered office of Thales Research and Technology (UK)

Limited is at: 2 Dashwood Lang Road, The Bourne Business Park, Addlestone,

Weybridge, Surrey KT15 2NX. Registered in England No. 774298.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.97/2550 - Release Date: 12/07/09 07:33:00


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.97/2550 - Release Date: 12/07/09 07:33:00


_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top