Re: [tycho-user] [Tycho Users] Request for Comments: Migration path to n

["Sievers, Jan" <jan.sievers@xxxxxxx>]

>@Igor, Jan: Does this match your memories of our discussion?

yes. Thanks for updating [1].

Jan

-----Original Message-----
From: tycho-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tycho-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberlies, Tobias
Sent: Freitag, 8. April 2011 18:29
To: tycho-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Tycho user list
Subject: Re: [tycho-user] [Tycho Users] Request for Comments: Migration path to new packaging type for p2-enabled products

We had discussed this at EclipseCon, and I also wanted to share the results here.

The behaviour of eclipse-application and the planned eclipse-product [1] differs in case of products that are not "valid" (according to the product editor's validate button), i.e. products that list bundles but not all of their dependencies. In that situation, eclipse-product adds the missing dependencies, whereas eclipse-application creates an installation with bundles that cannot be resolved & started. We consider the former to be the better default.

Also eclipse-product does not imply that the installed product has to contain the p2 bundles. It only includes p2 metadata that would allow updates through an external program (the p2 director). If that option is not desired, the update metadata may be removed without breaking the installation.

All-in-all, there are not sufficient reasons for having two implementations product support in Tycho. eclipse-application will be deprecated as soon as eclipse-product is implemented - and the implementation will be removed eventually, but certainly before a 1.0 release.

@Igor, Jan: Does this match your memories of our discussion?

Tobias


[1] https://docs.sonatype.org/display/TYCHO/Discussion+on+eclipse-repository+packaging+type+clean-up (updated today)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igor Fedorenko [mailto:igor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 17 March 2011 23:45
> To: tycho-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Tycho Users] Request for Comments: Migration path to new
> packaging type for p2-enabled products
> 
> I talked to developers who just want to ship new version of their app
> whenever they need to. And they want to be certain that the app stays
> the same from release to release. And I honestly don't see why Tycho
> should force p2 onto its users.
> 
> As far as default behaviour, I think it should depend on rcp contents.
> If the app includes p2 bits, then we generate is the p2 way. If the app
> does not include p2, then we don't force it. We can probably add a flag
> to the packaging mojo to force p2 on/off too.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
> 
> On 11-03-17 03:27 PM, Lohre, Jan wrote:
> > Hi Igor,
> >
> > what is the use case you see for an Eclipse RCP that is not p2-enabled?
> > There will be no update or install of new features possible.
> >
> > What would be the default result of this packaging type? Most likely (as
> far as I see it) people will want to have a p2-enabled rcp.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Jan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Igor Fedorenko [mailto:ifedorenko@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 17. März 2011 18:19
> > To: tycho-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Tycho Users] Request for Comments: Migration path to new
> packaging type for p2-enabled products
> >
> > I'd like to propose 2a -- replace "eclipse-application" with
> > implementation that can produce both p2-enabled and "plain" rcp
> > applications. I don't think we need "eclipse-application-old".
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> > On 11-03-17 12:19 PM, Oberlies, Tobias wrote:
> >> Tycho developers and users -
> >>
> >> As announced before [1], we want to introduce a new packaging type for
> building p2-enabled products and remove that functionality from eclipse-
> repository [2]. While the technical details are mostly clear, we haven't
> decided on how this packaging type shall be introduced.
> >>
> >> The new packaging type shall replace the current eclipse-application
> implementation. There are two options how this could be done:
> >>
> >>      1. By assigning a new name to the new packaging type, e.g.
> "eclipse-product". The current eclipse-application packaging type would be
> deprecated and eventually be removed.
> >>      2. By replacing "eclipse-application". To avoid the risk of
> blockers, the current implementation would remain available as fall-back
> under the name "eclipse-application-old".
> >>
> >> What is your opinion on this?
> >>
> >>
> >> I think that we should go for option 2, because it makes it more clear
> what we want people to use. I don't want the confusion again that we
> caused with eclipse-repository and eclipse-update-site. Also, the new
> packaging type will not need to mature after it has been created (as this
> was/is the case with eclipse-repository) because it will just be factored
> out of the eclipse-repository implementation.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Tobias
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://software.2206966.n2.nabble.com/Request-for-Comments-How-to-
> build-products-categories-and-p2-repositories-in-Tycho-
> tp5962554p5962554.html
> >> [2] https://docs.sonatype.org/display/TYCHO/Discussion+on+eclipse-
> repository+packaging+type+clean-up
> >>
_______________________________________________
tycho-user mailing list
tycho-user@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tycho-user