|Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] [platform-dev] Signed content|
I flushed the cache on the job's workspace and reran it from
This time it did not find unsigned jars from the platform's
builds nor in the SimRel aggregation. So most likely there was
some build at some time in which these were not signed, and those
were cached the first time they were visible. There's no way to
track down such artifact history when the IU IDs are identical;
and these IUs have no qualifier in the version...
Sorry for the false alarm. The platform never has made such
mistakes in the past, so the basic assumption was that this
therefore was a deliberate choice, especially given the ongoing
discussions about not signing things like Jetty in particular.
Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
I feel better with your statement that such a change would not be
made unilaterally and without notice.
I don’t this mail is in good intentions. This is really offending and upsetting.
Here is the output of jarsigner when I ran on org.eclipse.jetty.util.ajax
C:\Users\SRAVANLAKKIMSETTI\Downloads>"c:\EclipseTest\JAVA\jdk-11.0.10+9\bin\jarsigner.exe" -verify org.eclipse.jetty.util.ajax_10.0.2.jar
We do have a test in platform to verify unsigned content in the repository. That test will fail if any bundle is reported as unsigned. This is based on the repository analyser report generated during the build. We have been using this for quite some time. I myself has stopped simrel contribution multiple times the moment I notice a problem with signing.
I don’t see a problem when the jarsigner returns as success.
Hi, I am assume from observation that the platform team has decided to change its signing policy to not physically sign some jars anymore: https://download.eclipse.org/oomph/archive/reports/download.eclipse.org/eclipse/updates/4.20-I-builds/index.html
I am assume from observation that the platform team has decided to change its signing policy to not physically sign some jars anymore:
This of course propagates to SimRel:
I don't recall a Planning Council policy decision to drop/change the need for signed jars. I don't know the full impact this has on the installer nor on consumers. The installer at least appears to happily install such things and the IDE presents such things to the user as if they are signed:
Slowly I get the feeling that SimRel is a no longer process where we all work together as a team. Rather it feels as if the platform team can and does unilaterally make decisions for everyone else.
_______________________________________________ platform-dev mailing list platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
Back to the top