Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[cross-project-issues-dev] Orbit composite repository and discoveryURL


In the recent thread "Orbit build qualifiers changing with each build" I proposed not to *include* Orbit features any longer, but rather reference them (for example through the discovery URL element in the feature.xml). Nobody commented on that, so I would like to bring it up again as a separate thread. Thomas said, it's not Buckminster that creates the dependency ranges as [x,x]. I still don't know who's responsible for these dangerous dependencies and I feel like the more important question is:

    Is it generally good to *include* things that we've not built ourselves?

An example: The CDO build needs EMF but of course we don't *include* EMF in our repositories because EMF is already available in their own repositories. We only say that we *need* EMF [x,y) and all goes fine. Orbit also has its own repositories, so why do I have to *include* their stuff?

I'm not yet able to say whether the discoveryURL mechansim is adequate to *reference* Orbit features. Regardless what mechansim could do that, I'd like to hear if there are general objections and why.

The second question is: Will Orbit take actions to provide us with a composite repository in the near future? Or at least with a single URL that does never change?



Back to the top