[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: Fw: [p2-dev] Using the new "sofware site" target provisioner
|
I think the trick is to use the profile but skip the planner phase. This
means that a the full closure of IU's must be computed in a different
way but that's the only difference as far as I can tell. One simple way
of doing the computation is to use the PermissiveSlicer to select the
transitive closure of the selected top features. Once the set of IU's
has been determined, an InstallableUnitOperand is created for each one
and then the collect phase is executed as normal.
The result is an IBundleContainer that is polymorph, i.e. you don't need
to reload it just because you change the target platform os/ws/arch.
The really interesting thing about this is that if such a container was
present, there would be no need at all for the delta-pack. It would
become obsolete in an instance. Just point to the platform repository at
Eclipse.org and you're all set.
If you're interested, I can provide a patch that alters the current
IUBundleContainer to do it this way. IMO, it would make the "Sofware
site" provisioner a lot more useful.
- thomas
Darin Wright wrote:
I agree with your points - PDE could provide a better multi-platform
deployment story.
Just to clarify - the software site target provisioner is providing new
function that simplifies certain development scenarios. It does not solve
the multi-platform deployment problem. Simply changing the target
provisioner to use a "repo2runnable, non-p2-profile implementation" does
not solve the problem either. There are other pieces of the problem that
need to be solved - for example, root files that the delta-pack currently
contains. Moving forward (read post 3.5), enabling the software site
provisioner to download all fragments for all OS's (and NL's, etc.),
likely will be part of the overall solution of a better multi-platform
deployment story.
Darin
From:
Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>
To:
P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
05/01/2009 05:27 AM
Subject:
Re: Fw: [p2-dev] Using the new "sofware site" target provisioner
Sent by:
p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Darin,
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.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
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 to
complement 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
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
