Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[wtp-dev] small tweak to WTP's final bits

In our yearly competition to be the very last project to change their Ganymede deliverables  :)

I wanted to give notice of a change that should effect almost no one.

It does NOT effect EPP  packages
It does NOT effect update sites  
It does NOT effect end-users that just get and use the complete zip files, as is.

I would effect other projects if they download one of our WTP zip files to build against ... only because the name is now changed (it now has an 'a' suffix).
[And, sorry Joel, I was wrong, it does effect the "runtime" zips, not just SDKs].
But the code you actually build against has not changed.

It might effect projects who were pulling out specific parts of our zip files and creating their own products or custom installs with "pieces" of WTP.
But, for the better. And, then only if you were doing it wrong in the first place. :)

Details are in bug 237668.

The issue was that we mistakenly included some "build assembly" features in the zip files, which were not intended for "delivery",
and if some adopter (or user?) mistakenly included them in a "custom" product or installation, then they would end up with an
"invalid configuration" and be unable to do any future updates!. Thus, that is the severity that justifies the last minute fix.

The safest fix, we decided, was to just do surgery on our existing zips, and remove the problematic build-assembly features.
Thus, the effected zips were suffixed with "a". Specifically
We wanted to rename the zips, since they are different than what they were, even though nothing inside, that anyone should be using, has changed.
If you "built against" the previous ones, there is no need for you to re-build .. no code was changed, just the problematic feature.removed, which
hopefully no one was mistakenly using.
Are you wondering if you mistakenly referred to one of the bad ones? (without rebuilding, to see if you break).
      feature IDs OK to reference:

      features IDs NOT OK to reference:
If you did not, in your features mention 'includes' or 'requires' either of these last two, then you are fine and no need to take action.
I'm pretty sure no one would ... but, I've been surprised before.

Sorry for the churn, (and long note!)

Oh, and yes ... as much as I hate to admit it ... I do realize I am helping build the case for P2's strict rules and "install only, don't unzip" philosophy  :)

Back to the top