Great. Thanks!
Do you have a skype ID or are you on-line on an IRC channel? It would
be great to be able to communicate so that we don't do double work.
- thomas
Markus Knauer wrote:
DONE...
I changed both, the .project file *and* the directory name in CVS.
Therefore it may be a good idea to check out the features again.
Regards, Markus
2009/4/30 Markus Knauer <mknauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
There
are many conventions out there. I usually use the same ID for the
plugin *and* for the feature and this is the reason why I add a
"-feature" at the end of the project name. I don't know why I didn't
follow my own conventions here and added a ".feature" at the end of the
feature ID.
Anyway - yes, I can change the project names of the features to be the
same as the feature ID.
Regards, Markus
2009/4/30 Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>
I found one additional thing that makes the automation a bit more
difficult then it needs to be. For the features, you are using a
project name (and CVS folder) that is different from the feature ID. Is
there any particular reason for this or can we change that too?
Example:
Feature ID: org.eclipse.epp.package.java.feature
Project: org.eclipse.epp.package.java-feature
- thomas
Markus Knauer wrote:
1 - Yes, a patch would be wonderful.
2 - Maybe we can change it then ;-)
Thanks, Markus
2009/4/30 Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>
Markus
Knauer wrote:
Hi
Thomas,
1. - Should be easy to solve.
Is it OK if I provide a patch?
2.
- Yes, there was a reason to do it that way... it was the only
working configuration.
One problem was always that the application that we are running is
(always) the same (org.eclipse.ui.ide.workbench), provided by the
org.eclipse.platform feature. This is the reason why it is *included*
in the product defining feature. But the product extension point
definition lives in its own plug-in.
The normal approach would be - and here you are correct - to add the
package content as a list of *included* features to the top-level
feature (or to the .product file as a feature dependency). But in this
case you cannot export the "definition only" to a p2 repository, you
need to have the complete Galileo content somewhere in your target or
in your workspace. This is something that I am trying to avoid, since
it is IMHO easier to create metadata and as less as possible additional
artifacts because we need this repo as an augmenting repo for the p2
director call only.
Does that help to clarify it a bit? If someone tells me a way to
circumvent this - and this way is really working I am happy to change
it.
It helps. But at the same time, I think the issue goes away if we put
everything in Galileo. That way, there will be no need for any
additional repositories. All you need is the installer.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
--
Markus Knauer
EclipseSource
### phone: +49 721 664 733 0 (GMT +1)
### fax: +49 721 664 733 29
### web: www.eclipsesource.com
Innoopract Informationssysteme GmbH
Stephanienstrasse 20, 76133 Karlsruhe Germany
General Manager: Jochen Krause
Registered Office: Karlsruhe, Commercial Register Mannheim HRB 107883
|