| Re: [epp-dev] Parallel Package leverages CPP package |
>And then I thought this morning that if we have the case with one package being a subset of another it could be easier to consume the feature that defines the other package than to manage another redundant list.We don't include *all* the cpp package features but almost all. I noted this in a ptp-dev post yesterday, http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ptp-dev/msg06293.html
>In this case: If PTP has the same feature set as CPP plus some additional features, it could add org.eclipse.epp.package.cpp.feature to its feature instead of keeping a redundant list of features itself.
...Beth
Beth Tibbitts
Eclipse Parallel Tools Platform http://eclipse.org/ptp
IBM STG - High Performance Computing Tools
Mailing Address: IBM Corp., 745 West New Circle Road, Lexington, KY 40511
Doug Schaefer ---03/21/2012 10:51:11 AM---Yes, I forgot to add it to the b3 files. It's checked in now. Doug
From:
Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
To:
Eclipse Packaging Project <epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:
03/21/2012 10:51 AM
Subject:
Re: [epp-dev] Parallel Package leverages CPP package
Sent by:
epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Yes, I forgot to add it to the b3 files. It's checked in now.
Doug
From: Markus Knauer <mknauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Eclipse Packaging Project <epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:26:36 +0100
To: Eclipse Packaging Project <epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [epp-dev] Parallel Package leverages CPP package
For your information: Both, CPP and PTP package builds are failing due to some features (org.eclipse.ptp.pldt.fortran, org.eclipse.cdt.autotools) that are (currently? not yet?) available from /releases/staging.
And then I thought this morning that if we have the case with one package being a subset of another it could be easier to consume the feature that defines the other package than to manage another redundant list.
In this case: If PTP has the same feature set as CPP plus some additional features, it could add org.eclipse.epp.package.cpp.feature to its feature instead of keeping a redundant list of features itself.
Regards,
Markus
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 21:14, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Yes.
On 03/20/2012 04:02 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:Yeah, I'm adding the autotools feature to CDT's. Jeff, does that mean we
can remove the linuxtools.autotools feature from the includes?
On 12-03-20 4:01 PM, "Jeff Johnston"<jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Beth,
The autotools feature in the parallel feature.xml should be changed to
reference the new CDT one (org.eclipse.cdt.autotools). Other than that,
everything else from linuxtools remains the same.
-- Jeff J.
On 03/20/2012 03:36 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:Hey, Beth. The changes are already applied for Linux tools. I don't
think I need to change them any further at this point, at least for M6.
From: Beth Tibbitts<tibbitts@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tibbitts@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: Eclipse Packaging Project<epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:21:13 -0400
To: Eclipse Packaging Project<epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [epp-dev] Parallel Package leverages CPP package
I was just going to update the Parallel package today too, Doug.
My original contents were CPP, plus some of Linux tools and of course
PTP and Photran.
I think I should get the new CPP list now.
Let me know when you are done.
...Beth
Beth Tibbitts
Eclipse Parallel Tools Platform http://eclipse.org/ptp
IBM STG - High Performance Computing Tools
Mailing Address: IBM Corp., 745 West New Circle Road, Lexington, KY
40511
Inactive hide details for Doug Schaefer ---03/20/2012 12:20:43 PM---Hey
gang, Looking through the changes Linuxtools made to thDoug Schaefer
---03/20/2012 12:20:43 PM---Hey gang, Looking through the changes
Linuxtools made to the CPP package to merge the two, I noticed
From:
Doug Schaefer<dschaefer@xxxxxxx<mailto:dschaefer@xxxxxxx>>
To:
"epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>"<epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>,
Date:
03/20/2012 12:20 PM
Subject:
[epp-dev] Include versus requires/import
Sent by:
epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey gang,
Looking through the changes Linuxtools made to the CPP package to merge
the two, I noticed that they Include their features as opposed to add
them to the required section. I assume this was to allow for
optionality. Should we be including all our features this way? What's
the difference between include and require?
Thanks,
Doug._______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________ epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________ epp-dev mailing list epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev _______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
