[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] SimRel 2019-09 Repository Quality

Hello Ed,

First let my thank you for the great thing you did for all of us.


What should be the right "address" for bugzilla ticket to discuss the report content?

For example currently it has some difference with Project Handbook near "Provider" check [1]
"

Provider information is set to the projectâs formal name:

  • e.g. the Bundle-Vendor entry set to "Eclipse Foo" in OSGi Bundles; or

"

Regards,
AF

[1] https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#checklist

02.09.2019 10:55, Ed Merks ÐÐÑÐÑ:

I've been working on an application for analyzing p2 repository quality, primarily with a focus on the release train repository.

It generates a report with detailed information about the contents and quality of one or more repositories as documented here:

 https://wiki.eclipse.org/Oomph_Repository_Analyzer

My primary concern at this point is to eliminate invalid licenses so that users aren't prompted to approve multiple slightly different variants of the same license. My secondary concern is to eliminate unsigned content; this too is something for which the user is prompted. Both of these things present to the outside world an unprofessional impression of our releng processes. A nice-to-have would be if everyone provided pack200 artifacts, where appropriate, because this will speed up the installation/update process for our community (and it is a requirement for being on the train). Look at the last section of the report for these details.

The following are the reports for 2019-09 M3:

 https://download.eclipse.org/oomph/archive/reports/download.eclipse.org/releases/2019-09/https___download.eclipse.org_technology_epp_packages_2019-09_M3.html
 https://download.eclipse.org/oomph/archive/reports/download.eclipse.org/releases/2019-09/http___download.eclipse.org_releases_2019-09_201908301000.html

The primary source of bad licenses at this point is unfortunately the central license repository itself. This issue will be addressed by the following Bugzilla:

 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=537927

To address the problems in the EPP repo, I've open the following Bugzilla with a Gerrit commit to fix all the problems:

 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=550628

That in combination with the fix to the central license repository will make it clean; I've verified that against the Gerrit build results.

Unfortunately the release train repo is is rough shape and I will not personally (like I did for the platform EPP) be able to fix all these problems.

If you look at the report yourself (and please do), and your features or products are not in one of the valid groups (and not in the blue circled group which will be fixed when the central license repo is fixed and you create a new build using that fixed repo), then you need to take action:

Also please look at the unsigned content:

Please fix your build to sign the content; it's a requirement for being on the train. Looking at some of the build dates though, I'm concerned that folks aren't really actively participating.

Thanks in advanced for helping to improve the quality of our releases.


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

PNG image

PNG image