On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Denis Roy
<denis.roy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/25/2011 01:51 AM, David Williams wrote:
On 10/24/2011 03:54 PM, Terry Parker wrote:
Yes the b3 aggregator creates a self-consistent repo--I really like that. The problem we have with the b3 aggregator is that trying to mirror something as simple as "http://download.eclipse.org/releases/indigo/" and "http://download.eclipse.org/webtools/indigo/", the RepositoryVerifier reports "Cannot complete the install because of a conflicting dependency" for multiple versions of the same plug-in.
What does the mirrored setup look like after it is mirrored? I'd assume there is a top-level composite repository that aggregates the original 3.N.N releases. If that is the case, mirroring the entire repo, modifying the composite repository to cull out older Eclipse versions, and then using the b3 aggregator might be the easiest approach for us.
Yes, they are composites. In some cases the composite points to other composites. Sometimes the composites URLs "point to" the file system, sometimes to http URLs. (Yes, we've heard complaints before :) ... such as bug 350031 [1] ... and its that way for a reason, so unlikely to change)
Thanks for clarifying the repository layout for me.
Before filing a bug on the Buckminster aggregator I tried updating to the latest headless version but wasn't able to get that working (it was initially set up for the Eclipse 3.5 version). There is a gap in the documentation of using the headless aggregator so I filed
http://bugs.eclipse.org/361959 for that.
After updating the aggregator build file to the 3.7 version, running the aggregation from within the Aggregator Editor allowed it to mirror the repositories just fine. My problems with the aggregator seem to be resolved now that I have upgraded. Using the aggregator alone doesn't get us just the 3.7.1 slice, but for our current purposes that is ok. It is good to know that if our needs change we can use the mirroring in combination with the aggregator to get very fine grained control.
Thanks for everyone's help!
--Terry
If you have the disk space, I think using the rsync script three times (or more) a year is also a valid solution.
Denis
