| Mandatory repositories in p2f-files? [message #822209] |
Fri, 16 March 2012 09:57  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
When creating a p2f-file using the Export functionality of Indigo, <repository tags are created in the file per installable unit. It seems, that during export a search is done behind which active repository URL the installible unit can be found. When importing the p2f into a different installation, these repositories are accessed again.
Is there a way to leave it up to the importing installation to find adequate sources for the installable units listed in the p2f (based again on the currently active URLs)? I tried to remove the <repository tags before importing, or to set size='0', but this does not work.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mandatory repositories in p2f-files? [message #824104 is a reply to message #822454] |
Mon, 19 March 2012 09:07  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
I'm exploring how to avoid potential legal issues which may come up for a software provider if, when a customer is installing a feature F1, all dependencies are installed automatically from other software sites. It might happen that the provider of F1 will be made responsible for all other software which has been installed together with F1 because it is not obvious to the end user which pieces of software have been installed from which source. I know there a license dialogs etc. I'm not a legal expert, but still I'm looking for ways to find a "clean" 2 step installation process, which is still acceptable in terms of usability.
Therefore, I looked at p2f-files. Now, the issue with predefined locations might be that I, as a software provider, don't know in advance whether an end user has access to the predefined locations. For instance, in some enterprises end users do not have internet access at all. There, an administrator might set up an internal mirror of Indigo. Thus, in my use case, I would like to deliver a p2f-file containing only the prerequisites for the actual target software leaving it up to the local system configurations from where these prerequistes are drawn.
Thanks,
Klaus
|
|
|
| Re: Mandatory repositories in p2f-files? [message #827175 is a reply to message #824104] |
Fri, 23 March 2012 01:18 |
 Pascal Rapicault
Messages: 333
Registered: July 2009
Location: Ottawa |
Senior Member |
|
|
Klaus Kopecz wrote on Mon, 19 March 2012 05:07 I'm exploring how to avoid potential legal issues which may come up for a software provider if, when a customer is installing a feature F1, all dependencies are installed automatically from other software sites. It might happen that the provider of F1 will be made responsible for all other software which has been installed together with F1 because it is not obvious to the end user which pieces of software have been installed from which source. I know there a license dialogs etc. I'm not a legal expert, but still I'm looking for ways to find a "clean" 2 step installation process, which is still acceptable in terms of usability.
This is very interesting requirement in that it is what the very first update manager eclipse had, use to do. This ended up in bad user experience and in people complaining because they had to do a two steps install and answer questions that were random.
Providing a two step install only goes so far in covering you. Once people are actually running the software and there is a problem, it is all the same soup to them and they will blame whoever they paid money to.
You are left to prove yourself not guilty by means of logging and proper identification in the Provider name that can be viewed in the Help > About > installation details > plugin dialog.
I also find ironic that as the author of F1 you are providing a feature that depends on F2, but on the other hand don't want to take responsibility for it 
Quote:
Therefore, I looked at p2f-files. Now, the issue with predefined locations might be that I, as a software provider, don't know in advance whether an end user has access to the predefined locations. For instance, in some enterprises end users do not have internet access at all. There, an administrator might set up an internal mirror of Indigo. Thus, in my use case, I would like to deliver a p2f-file containing only the prerequisites for the actual target software leaving it up to the local system configurations from where these prerequistes are drawn.
Thanks,
Klaus
Unfortunately p2 does not have a concept of internal mirror. It has been discussed but nobody cared enough to implement it.
The p2f import support does not offer the ability to pick a repository in case the installation fail, but like mirrors, this could be added.
There are two possibilities that come to mind:
- In case you are in control of the base in which people are installing you are software, you could customize the p2 UI to have a two phase acknowledgement UI. You would mark your features with a special tag that other would not have so you could drive the content of a new dialog.
- Only provide one feature that refers to all the necessary pieces (those that would have been listed in the p2f) and let the end user deal with providing the site.
HTH
Pascal
=-=-=
Consulting, training, bug fixing - pascal (at) rapicault.net
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.07227 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
