Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Aggregator / B3 / Buckminster Question

Hi Miles,

Optional dependencies being installed sounds like

Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect - Development Tools, Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85  fax +43.662.457915.6

-----Original Message-----
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miles Parker
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:31 PM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Aggregator / B3 / Buckminster Question

I'm also thinking that perhaps I could simply exclude these bundles from the aggregator, but looking at the docs, it seems that you can *add* bundles and use Exclusion Rules to exclude *features*, but there doesn't seem to be any way to exclude plugins. And I'm not at all clear on why P2 would include these anyway. I always thought that the purpose of features was to provide a clear indication of what the user wants to install. Does anyone know why is P2 is adding optional stuff not included in the feature?!

On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Miles Parker wrote:

> OK, I've got AMP staged and it appears to be working but the signing report revealed an issue that I'm hoping people can give advice on...
> I've got some plugins that have optional dependencies on stuff that will *not* be part of the Indigo release -- they're Eclipse hosted and IP ok, but the project isn't participating. My thinking was that that would work fine, but when I get the feature that I'm providing for Indigo from my release update site, P2 goes ahead and grabs the optional dependencies as well, and I then get a signing message. My *thinking* is that when the aggregator runs, P2 will *not* get those optional plugins unless of course the user has also added the AMP release update site separately. I won't be able to actually test that until the aggregator runs on my most recent build so I wanted to ask if my reasoning seems correct?
> (My other alternative that I'm just trying now is to remove those optional dependencies, but that will mean users that then add those optional features may lose functionality.)
> For buckminster folks, I'm wondering is I set the "eclipse.p2.optional" to "false" in the build will that make any difference as far as the provisioning time dependencies go? I'm guessing no..
> As a side note, I'm trying to diagnose an issue -- somehow my other committer's changes in the last week have been lost in the git wilderness -- like gone, not even accessible in reflog. :( Unfortunately, he's in Central Europe, so it's unlikely that I'll be able to get him to try to recommit the changes. I've got an open bug with webmaster, so If I am somehow able to restore those important bits before the cutoff tonight, I may ask for a fresh build.
> cheers,
> Miles

cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

Back to the top