RE: [photran-dev] Beta 1 on Monday?

["Hilliard, Bill" <bill.hilliard@xxxxxxxxx>]

Our expectation regarding the Intel-related support is that it is part
of Photran now and will ship with Photran.  We have no plans to ship it
separately at this time.

Regarding the fileVersion attribute in the MBS code, I asked Leo
Treggiari his opinion and here is what he had to say:

"Here are the 2 things that I found that use the version number from the
manifest file:

 1.  When MBS loads a manifest, it will refuse to load a manifest with a
fileVersion that is > than its version number.  So, changing the
fileVersion to 3.1 would mean that CDT 3.0 would refuse to load it if
someone happened to install it there.  That is probably a good thing.

2.  When a client asks for the version of a build element (e.g.
ToolChain) and the element does not specify a version number, MBS will
set the version number based upon the fileVersion of the manifest file
that the element came from.  But both 3.0 and 3.1 will return a version
number of 0.0.4, so it doesn't seem as if it would make any difference
there."

So I would say it would be a good thing to change, but could be fixed
during the beta rather than holding up releasing the beta.

Thanks for your attention to the about and license files.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: photran-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:photran-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Spiros Xanthos
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:05 PM
To: Photran Developer Information; Craig Rasmussen
Cc: Jeffrey Overbey
Subject: Re: [photran-dev] Beta 1 on Monday?

We added about.html files in all the plugins and licence.html in the 
photran-featrure.

>   <managedBuildRevision
>         fileVersion="3.0.0">
>      </managedBuildRevision>
>
We are not sure though about the effects of changing the fileVersion .
Craig is more familiar with this part of the code, is it going to cause 
any problems?

Also, should we distribute the intel-feature or exclude it form this 
release and let you (Intel) distribute it separately?

--Spiros

Hilliard, Bill wrote:

>I did some testing last night.  Everything seems to function o.k.  I
>have a few questions though.
>
>Eclipse legal requirements:
>
>There are still a lot of plugins that don't have about.html files
>associated with them and the Photran primary feature does not have the
>eclipse license.html file.  It was my understanding these are required
>by eclipse.org.  Just mentioning it.  I'm certainly no expert on the
>legal stuff.
>
>Managed build support:
>
>Both the Intel and the Photran managed build manifests have build
>definitions that specify:
>
>      <managedBuildRevision
>         fileVersion="3.0.0">
>      </managedBuildRevision>
>
>I think we should probably change these to "3.1.0" for the newer CDT
>version.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bill
>-----Original Message-----
>From: photran-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:photran-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Overbey
>Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 2:13 PM
>To: Photran Developer Info
>Subject: [photran-dev] Beta 1 on Monday?
>
>We are finishing up some things today; any objections to turning HEAD 
>into Photran 3.1 Beta 1 on Monday?
>
>Jeff
>_______________________________________________
>photran-dev mailing list
>photran-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/photran-dev
>_______________________________________________
>photran-dev mailing list
>photran-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/photran-dev
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
photran-dev mailing list
photran-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/photran-dev