I've just sent this not to Eclipse PMC
... but expect this to be a "rapidly developing story" today,
so wanted to make Planning Council aware of it at the same time, and begin
to solicit your requirements and advice on the best course of action. I
believe the attached note (and all the bugs linked to other bugs) contain
all the information that's needed, but we should also get some input from
"webmasters", since I believe there is a new, just discovered,
issue with our "Mac Signing Service" that we could "fix
now" or "fix later". Their input might impact which course
of action there is the best one to take.
Thanks for any help or advice on what's
best for our user community and the needs of our adopters.
----- Forwarded by David
M Williams/Raleigh/IBM on 09/25/2014 06:35 AM -----
David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM
09/25/2014 06:35 AM
Luna SR1, due to "Platform Runtime Binary" regression, may be
worthy of respin
There's been some late-breaking regressions
found in EPP packages, which, at their root, are (partially) due to a regression
in Eclipse Platform Runtime. (no regression with SDK, but even there, it
will be effected by new Apple requirements for signing apps for 10.9.5).
This regression concerns Macs only and
is related to the Info.plist file.
Plus, while investigating that, I've
discovered there are new signing requirements for Mac OS X 10.9.5 and higher.
While that OS version has only been out a week or two ... it has been no
secret it's changing and we may look pretty poor if "Eclipse.app"
suddenly stops working, after people upgrade to 10.9.5. (Though, would
still work, from command line, which I suspect is why none of us noticed
it, until now).
I have opened a "central"
bug to discuss what options we have for Luna SR1 (Bug 445064
) as well as what to do for Mars
M2, which has same issues (Bug 445062
I have taken the liberty of starting
a maintenance rebuild, which is nearly done building. And will soon start
re-building the Sim. Release repo (where, only the Eclipse and Equinox
contributions will change) ... but can always "throw them away"
depending on if the PMC (or Planning Council) wants to take some other
action. And/or "through them away" and do all over again, if
the webmasters say they can fix the new signing requirements issue this
morning. [The new signing requirements is a pretty sticky issue, since
if I am reading it right, we should actually go "back in time"
and re-sign existing, old releases as well, for them to work on 10.9.5!
-- in other words, a lot of work -- for someone].
I'll be sending a note to Planning Council
"in parallel", just for efficiency, but its my belief the "first
decision" should come from the PMC.