Re: [p2-dev] Versions that are not OSGi compliant

[Pascal Rapicault <Pascal_Rapicault@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm mixed about this, mostly because I'm not convinced that canonicalization does not work (do you have examples) and because of the breadth of the code change.
Also, here are a few questions that comes to mind:
- What happen when the "version handler" is not around?
- Can't we come up with a rule based approach to avoid everyone to have to provide their version handler class?

Let's discuss this at the next p2 call: http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox/p2/Meetings/20081117

PaScaL

Thomas Hallgren ---11/11/2008 11:51:44 AM---Hi, A while back I brought up the discussion about versions that are not

From:	Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>
To:	P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	11/11/2008 11:51 AM
Subject:	[p2-dev] Versions that are not OSGi compliant

---

Hi,
A while back I brought up the discussion about versions that are not 
compliant with the standard OSGi format. A brief discussion with Pascal 
can be viewed here:

http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/equinox-dev/msg04260.html

I also entered a bugzilla

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=233699

This issue important to us and as we're moving our technology closer to 
P2 we would really like to see a resolution. We are of course willing to 
contribute, partly or in full, if that's what it takes. We have good 
ideas of how this can be done without any impact on resolution 
performance. The thing missing at this point is some enthusiastic 
responses from the p2 team :-)

So what do you think?

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren

_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev