|Re: Fw: [p2-dev] Using the new "sofware site" target provisioner|
I think the current approach has some implications that are hard to overcome. An example:
The org.eclipse.jdt.launching.macosx bundle is not part of the delta-pack. It is however included in of one of my features. If the "Software site" is controlled by a profile, then it becomes impossible for me to build a target definition that includes this bundle unless I perform some fairly tricky acrobatics.
The same is of course true for all platform specific bundles and fragments that are not included in the delta pack. A "Software site" becomes useless in a multi-platform scenario unless all plug-ins and fragments can be copied regardless of the current platform settings. Well, regardless of filtering in general actually, since we also want all language fragments etc.
IMO, there should be very little difference between what a developer and a build-meister can accomplish. The tools now provided out-of-the-box makes it possible for any developer to publish a P2 site. That makes the Multi Platform scenario a very common case. I would therefore strongly suggest that the "Software site" logic changes approach and instead uses the one taken by the repository tool 'repo2runnable' used by the releng team. Not doing so will limit its usefulness in a way that is unfortunate.
As a side-note, Buckminster just went through the same motions after discovering the limitations in using a profile when doing the target platform provisioning. We now mirror all artifacts and we don't consider the meta-data at all.
Darin Wright wrote:
Hi Darin, I tested this and made the following observations: I stared by trying to add a "Sofware Site". I deliberately omitted to specify os/ws/arch. The result of this omission was that my platform defaults were used. That's not what I wanted. I need a platform that I can use for publishing features into a P2 repository. The features includes fragments from all possible platforms.A target definition referencing software sites is backed by a p2 profile. A profile is os/ws/arch specific. A target *definition* can take on a specific os/ws/arch by specifying them explicitly or it can take on the settings of the os/ws/arch it is installed in (by leaving them unspecified). A target *platform*, or state (the result of resolving a target definition) is os/ws/arch specific, as it always has been.Although you write that it doesn't make much sense, I still attempted tocomplement my target platform with a "Directory" where I had the delta-pack feature and tried again. Now, when it loads things from the "Software Site", I can see that it downloads the artifacts that are already present in the delta-pack (I can see them by checking the "Show Plug-in Content"). Wouldn't it be more efficient to let all types share a common bundle pool?The delta pack works as before - you add it as separate directory. It is true that there is some duplication between the delta pack and what gets downloaded to the bundle pool. This was causing some trouble when launching targets in the M7 test pass build (but has been fixed - see bug 274225). When resolving a target platform (i.e. build state) from a definition, duplicate bundles are now rolled into one. The net result is that a definition can point to arbitrary sources of bundles where duplicates exist, but the resulting target state will only contain one. The profile maintained for a target definition only contains IU's that are specified from software sites. The additional locations (directories, etc.), are not installed into the profile since we do not (necessarily) have metadata to install them.Using a profile to manage a target platform doesn't sound right to me but perhaps I got it all wrong in respect to how to set up a target platform. What is the recommended approach given my requirements?The end result is that we use a profile to manage the software sites contained in a definition - the entire target is not maintained in a profile. For this reason, you use the delta pack the same as before. Moving forward, perhaps we can find some better ways to manage the multi-platform scenarios. However, I think there is a difference between development and deployment that should be noted here. Developers often use target definitions/platforms to develop for a specific platform, whereas build-meisters want to use them to deploy for all platforms. Darin _______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev