Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] org.eclipse.jdt.core from objectteams gets selected due to higher version

Correction. Should say "selected by Buckminster", not "selected by p2" since this isn't a build-time best-effort resolution and not a full p2 resolution. I guess the same can be said about the Tycho resolution.

- thomas

On 2014-06-25 14:17, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
My guess is that the reason it gets selected by p2 is that the version


is lexically greater than


since '_' (0x5f) is greater than '2' (0x32)

- thomas

On 2014-06-25 12:57, Stephan Herrmann wrote:
On 06/25/2014 12:09 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
I just encountered a build failure when using the platform repository in conjunction with the luna staging one. The failure was caused by p2 preferring the objectteams patch for org.eclipse.jdt.core in favor of the original. Seems the patch has a higher version (3.10.0.v_OTDT_r230_201406101339) than the one found in the platform repo (3.9.2.v20140114-1555). I don't recall having seen
this problem before so something must be different. Anyone have a clue as to what might be causing this?

One thing, exactly, has changed in Object Teams in this regard:
I followed Pascal's advice for avoiding unintended updates from
the original to the OTDT variant.

On 06/25/2014 09:13 AM, Sievers, Jan wrote:
> looks similar to

That's the exact reference to our best effort to improve this.

I double checked and from all I can see the meta data looks
exactly as advised:
- the OTDT variant of org.eclipse.jdt.core has a non-greedy
  dependency on our patch feature (since Juno)
  -> cannot be installed without explicitly selecting that
     patch feature.
- the patch feature is marked as a patch for the *bundle*
  org.eclipse.jdt.core, not for the jdt feature (new in Luna).
  -> patch feature is not regarded as an update of the
     jdt feature.

Can you share a setup for reproduction?
The reference to 3.9.2... looks fishy, indeed.


cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

Back to the top