Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] New "repository reports"

Hi again,

Another question we have: while fixing the issue on missing about.html files we noticed that we have files with different dates.
I found this page (, but the template is even older than the files we have. Should we only fix the date, and use the same from the new SUA (February 1st, 2011)?

And we would like to know what would be the best approach: should we modify/update the about.html file whenever a plugin changes or should we modify all about.html in the simultaneous release time frame (even for those that haven't been changed)?

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:37, Daniel Pastore <kpqb38@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,

Once again here we come with a newbie question: we did not understand what would be:
Use of Eclipse-SourceReferences
List those bundles which are, and which are not, using the highly recommended Eclipse-SourceReferences directive.

Any clarifications are highly appreciated.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 14:45, David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just in time for Indigo ... or way early for Juno, depending on your perspective  ... I've been working on consolidating some of the "releng tests" that some projects use, and that are occasionally used in isolation for the Simultaneous Release. For the results on the latest staging repo, see

I know most of these report will be too late to do much good for Indigo (I would not suggest mass updates, just to correct plugin names, for example) but some of them are important for Indigo.  I'd suggest everyone take a look at the first four:

Bundles missing required files
This report lists bundles and features that are missing important, required files. It looks directly at jars in the common repository. (Currently, does not check those "trusted repositories" we point to via composite indirection). Missing legal files are usually considered a "stop ship" issue, since Eclipse is well known for its IP quality.
Unsigned bundles
This report lists bundles and features that are that are not signed. Pretty serious issue, though there are a few exceptions. (well, only one code exception is known ... see below).
Bundles not using 4 part versions
To have p2 update correctly and OSGi to resolve bundles as expected, it is essential that bundles and features use the required 4 part versioning rules. Every build.
Consistent, current licenses (SUA) in features
Check to make sure features use the current, correct license. The report also lists features in repository with no license (SUA) in the content metadata. This report uses the repository's content metadata, instead of the jar files themselves, in contrast to the "missing files" report, above. Both are important to be correct, as different parts of Eclipse code use one or the other to present information to the user depending on the task.

Some bugs have been opened a few weeks ago on some of these issues in Indigo, and these reports are just an initial attempt to get this testing centralized, and ran more frequently and automatically.

I've opened a bug already to discuss errors in these initial reports:

Bug 347882 - Improve Software Repository Reports  

You can suggest improvement there too ... but, be forewarned ... what we really need are volunteers to do the work, not to make suggestions :)

cross-project-issues-dev mailing list


Daniel Pastore
Sequoyah Team

Thanks again,

Daniel Pastore
Sequoyah Team

Back to the top