The
behavior that the “About” dialog’s “Features” tab actually
shows branding plugins rather than features themselves has
been discussed in the past:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=163169
And,
maybe related:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=83985
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=73768
I
can only guess what the original authors of the “about” box
code wanted to achieve.
It
looks like one idea was filtering contents to show “what’s
relevant to an end user” rather than “what’s technically in
the installation”.
And
that for an author of a feature, writing a branding plugin
was the way to express “being relevant” along with the
desire contributing to the about box.
No
branding plugin, no about box entry.
A
side effect of this design decision is the coupling of icons
to about box content, and the way how providers / icons are
grouped together.
Looking
at the sometimes long list of icons in the about box of a
typical enterprise eclipse install makes me understand to
some extent the reason why about box contents is filtered.
The
implication that there is no way looking at the “Copyright”
of a feature that has no branding plugin is an odd
side-effect.
Perhaps
the thinking was that “Copyright” is only relevant to
programmers looking at source code of a feature (ie those
who are in the position to “copy” anything), and not the end
users.
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber,
SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools,
Wind
River
direct
+43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
From:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights
and org.eclipse.license
Ah,
so that's your question. Well, then I can definitely say I
don't know the answer.
I
suspect your right, it's related to if a feature has a
"branding bundle" (or direct descendent of one that does)
... I know "root feature" also play a role (at least on that
"overview" page ... but, in many cases, I don't think "we"
want to show users ALL features ... There's just be too
many.
I
do know that "source features (and bundles)" are
deliberately not shown (as being too much clutter) but ...
I'm not sure what mechanism accomplishes that (because when
we first moved to Tycho, they were displayed, and I forget
the bug number and the fix "they" had to make to get them
recognized and not displayed.
For
debugging, I always ask for the "Configuration" page, which
I do think has a "complete list" of features and plugins
(search for '***').
Hope
that helps, and perhaps another reader can answer your
question more directly.
From:
Ed
Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Cross
project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:
05/25/2014
02:22 AM
Subject:
Re:
[cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights and
org.eclipse.license
Sent
by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi David
Let me try a simpler question since we seem to be being
confused by P2 repositories and the running installation.
What is the purpose of the Eclipse SDK Installation Details
Features page?
My expectation is that it should list every feature that is
successfully installed/resolved in the running installation.
Further I expect that the plugin details button enable me to
identify every plugin associated with the feature.
Currently many features are not listed and many plugins are
not shown, so either my expectation or the page is at fault.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 25/05/2014 07:05, David M Williams wrote:
Ed,
I don't really know the answer to some of your questions
(not sure I understand what question you have, exactly) ...
but, pretty sure it not a "a bug in the Features page".
One of the reasons some reports are given as they are, is
that some may have use for p2 repositories and their
metadata "above and beyond" how Eclipse specifically uses
them. To quote the p2 wiki:
"Although p2 has specific support for installing
Eclipse and Equinox-based applications, it includes a
general-purpose provisioning infrastructure that can be used
as the basis for provisioning solutions for a wide variety
of software applications."
So, yes, some reports are not that important for the
"Simultaneous Release" per se ... but ... might be important
for a "perfect repository" (which in theory, could be used
by some other client ... though I know of no specific ones).
That's why I always try emphasize only the most important
ones, in my notes, and the order the reports are listed, and
remind everyone if you find the other useful, fine, if not,
then you can ignore them. I appreciate that "Buckminster" is
making good use of it for project builds, which is great,
and I'm sure if some reports "get in the way" someone will
figure out a good patch to allow some report or test to be
"configured". (I've heard of "requests" for that ... but,
don't think anyone has opened a specific bug on it).
Hope that helps, a little.
From: Ed
Willink
<ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Cross
project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 05/24/2014 10:30 AM
Subject: Re:
[cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights and
org.eclipse.license
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi David
'properties' is sort of the answer, but it's more mysterious.
----
I have been reviewing the Eclipse SDK Installation Details
Features page since this is the only place where I think users
get to see a formatted feature copyright.
I'm puzzled since I found it difficult to understand what this
page actually displays. Far from displaying all installed
features, as I assumed, it appears to show:
- all features that either have an explicit branding plugin or
a plugin with the same id as the feature (? an implicit
branding plugin).
- copyright details taken from the 'branding' plugin
featureText property.
There are therefore a large number of installed features that
are not displayed. (Over 50% for my projects).
copyright text in feature.properties is redundant, since only
the branding plug about.properties is used.
----
It seems that every feature should have a branding plugin to
populate the Eclipse SDK Installation Details Features page
using
- about.ini with an aboutText=%featureText property
- about.properties with a featureText=... property
----
Back to my original question.
It seems that there should be a
copyright=...
in every feature.properties in order to silence the
Buckminster warning.
The text of this copyright is only visible by manually reading
the properties file (or perhaps using a properties file API).
----
Is the above analysis correct and if so how much of it is a
bug in the Features page?
Regards
Ed Willink
On 08/05/2014 15:25, David M Williams wrote:
Ed,
Not sure ... of the answer, or what you are asking, but will
answer anyway, and maybe I'll get lucky :)
As with "license" (SUA) text, there are actually two sources
... one in property files, and one in repository metadata
(in content.jar/xml). Since that report mentions "repo" at
the top, believe its looking at repository data.
Whereas in Eclipse SDK "about" it's probably coming from
property file.
If I recall, from top of my head, in most cases in "Eclipse
UI", there are few (or no?) places to see the copyright as
it appears in repository -- for bundles -- (perhaps in
runtime targets -- not sure) ... so the report is probably
not that useful -- for bundles ... but, features can display
their "copyright" before you install something ... and that
comes from content.xml/jar file. But, once installed, it
comes from properties file. I think (again, depending on my
poor memory) the one in property files "comes from" what's
defined for plugin.xml, but the one in metadata comes from
an OSGi header in bundle ... that few people use.
= = == = = = = =
Christian,
I'm no lawyer :) but you are probably correct they'd find it
a "valid" copyright statement.
... I have a question. Why does the word „Copyright“ has
to be at the beginning and why does it make a difference
if it is not ?
org.eclipse.riena.build.feature.core.sdk.e4.feature.group
6.0.0.v20140506_6_0_0_M7b
*******************************************************************************
* Copyright (c) 2007 - 2013 compeople AG and others. * All
rights reserved. This program and the accompanying
materials * are made available under the terms of the
Eclipse Public License v1.0 * which accompanies this
distribution, and is available at *
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html * * Contributors: * compeople AG
- initial API and implementation
*******************************************************************************
But, I am a human, and can definitively say it does not look
pretty! :)
On the one hand, the report is doing you a favor since such
lines often indicate an "end of line" or "extra"
continuation character got added. That is, doubt you
intended to have so many asterisks at the beginning of your
copyright statement. Did you?
And on the other hand, I think I'm just looking for
something that approaches the Eclipse Foundation's
"standard" display ... such as see
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc.php
section 4.3, Features Licenses and Feature Update Licenses.
I other words, I think best if we all had a consistent,
professional look to such "copyright" statements (at the
bottom of that figure). Does yours look ok, there, or do you
see the string of asterisks?
= = = = = =
All, these reports are intended to help you. They are not
perfect. Improvements welcome. And if you don't find them
useful, you can ignore them. Well, except for a few cases.
We'll soon start to "fail builds" if "legal files" missing,
etc. but doubt we ever would "fail" for "indeterminate"
cases of copyright's ... but ... might, someday, not for
June, if missing completely.
Thanks,
From: Ed
Willink
<ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Cross
project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 05/08/2014 08:12 AM
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev]
Copyrights and org.eclipse.license
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi David
While checking http://build.eclipse.org/simrel/luna/reporeports/reports/copyrights.html,
I see that my plugins are reported as
"Indeterminant: feature's copyright text contains the word
'copyright' but not at beginning:"
which seems to be the same story as Hudson complaining that
%copyright is undefined when re-using org.eclipse.license.
However when I check the copyrights in Eclipse SDK
Installation Details|Features it seems that something has done
a good job of deducing the copyright as:
(c) Copyright Eclipse contributors and others. 2003, 2014.
All rights reserved.
Visit https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.mdt.ocl
so I was impressed and ignored the Hudson warnings.
If there is clever code providing the copyright, why doesn't
your report find it?
Any idea where the clever code is?
Regards
Ed Willink_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3931/7457 - Release
Date: 05/07/14
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3950/7555 - Release
Date: 05/24/14
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
