[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] How to have fun with RC1
|
Hi all,
one thing to especially keep an eye on when trying to
upgrade from a product based on Galileo to a product based on Helios, is
the Launcher.ini (eclipse.ini) and config.ini
files.
These
files must be considered part of the "product", e.g. the JEE package uses
-vmargs -Dosgi.requiredJavaVersion=1.5 which the Eclipse
Platform (Eclipse SDK) does not use. The expected content of both files has
changed between Galileo and Helios:
- In
launcher.ini (eclipse.ini), the --launcher.defaultAction
openFile was added
- also,
the arguments to -startup and --launcher.library flags need
change
- In
config.ini, the equinox.use.ds=true flag was
added
- also,
the argument of osgi.framework needs change
- In
the JEE package, also an jpa.equinox.weaving osgi framework extension was
added
I'm
wondering what the strategy is for handling these two files on a major
upgrade? Keeping the old settings is wrong; some settings must change
when I upgrade the Platform. On the other hand, overriding all settings is also
wrong. So, some kind of merge is needed. Can this be expected to work? How is it
expected to work?
We
discovered these issues when accidentally trying to install the Eclipse SDK from
the Helios Repo into our commercial product, which uses a different
osgi.configuration.area setting. When trying to upgrade, all new bundles were
installed into the config area; but upon restart, the application bundle of our
product was no longer found.
We didn't dive into
any details on this, and solved the issue for now by disallowing an installation / upgrade
of the Eclipse SDK. Individual
bundles such as the JDT can still
be installed / updated. But I'd be rather careful with installing / updating
the Platform or especially the Eclipse SDK, which seems to "own" the Launcher in
Helios. To me, it looks like a major upgrade can only work if the
"Product feature" which contains the .ini files is available in the repo in an
updated form. Do we have a Repo for the EPP Product features available
yet?
I don't feel like this observation is ready for filing a bug yet, but I
thought I'd let people know what _could_ be an issue here...
Thanks,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
direct
+43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
I have flipped that switch to make
RC1 content visible in the common repository, at
http://download.eclipse.org/releases/helios/
There will now be RC1 and M7 content available there. (I
could add back M6 content too ... if anyone has any use for it ... special tests
they want to run with multiple composite repos. Performance? Rollback? Let me
know soon, say my Tuesday of next week? Otherwise, I'll soon remove all the
"old" (unused) milestone sub-repositories to free up mirrors space.
Remember that if someone
starts with M6 or M7, they _might_ still not see the most recent feature listed
in a category (See bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=312169)
but RC1 itself
should show categories correctly.
Now the fun part.
I suggest
we all try upgrading a (non-production) version of a Galileo install, to Helios.
Just pick your favorite type of package
or install, and see what happens.
As
discussed in bug 303583
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=303583
this is a migration path that _should_ work. For the
first time, there are no platform limitations that are known to prevent it.
But, also as discussed there,
it has been decided not to aggressively
push that upgrade path ... or even, officially, "support" it
(it is just too new, to know how to guarantee it, etc)
... but ...
it would be good to
know ahead of the release if there were big, obvious problems in some areas ...
or,
if some users might have some
success doing that type of upgrade. To test, just add
http://download.eclipse.org/releases/helios/
to your Galileo installation list of software sites, and
try update or install (depending
on how
your Galileo version was created).
I'm
really not sure what to expect here ... I think it will either work like magic,
or not work at all.
but I do think it is
good to know ahead of time.
Please
document issues found in bug 303583
or
ask here if questions.
Thanks,
