Thank you for your briefly response, David. > > Obligatory. To be in common repo. From > http://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements#OSGi_bundle_format > > <quote> > Clarification on 02/01/2012: the repositories produced and contributed must > use p2 publishers that produce greedy='false', by default, in the content > metadata. See bug 247099 and the p2 Publisher wiki for some history and > details on this issue of greedy vs. non-greedy requirements. > </quote> >
Means, using the new p2 publisher is obligatory and greedy=false is not obligatory. <quote>If the old behaviour is desired, i.e. an optional dependency shall be satisfied during installation whenever possible, the dependency can be annotated with an additional directive:resolution:=optional;x-installation:=greedy. </quote> I use the new p2 publisher and x-installation directive. So it's ok. Still friends? :) > > > I'd like that people accept, that this is a valid combination and don't > > nag on projects, who use it. > > I've obviously not done a good job of education, but its not a valid > combination. Its been that way "for years", wrongly, and so many people > complained about it something had to be done. (Not literally just because of > complaints, but conceptually ... people were convinced it is a bad idea to > automatically infer install behavior based on (optional) runtime requirements > ... and this repo-metadata-attribute solution was thought to be the "least of > all evils", say as opposed to changing p2's behavior itself). > Yes… We all have our horrors and our demons to fight. Thanks for your commitment. > > So we are trying to improve the yearly Release and its common repo. Yes, its > a change from previous years. And, now, the reason its a requirement to be in > common repo, is its something we must do consistently for it to work. > Otherwise, one project would be "forcing" their preferences on all other > participants. Or, worse, causing the install behavior to be undefined and > indeterminint. > > I am going to try to improve the report. > > Bug 380571 - greediness report needs work > > Martin's pointed out what may be one bug. Maybe there's others. Plus, while I > was hoping to avoid spending so much of my time on this, I will see if I can > add "back tracking" to the report, so we'll know who has the conflicting > specifications. > > If anyone knows now that they wants _all_ their optional runtime dependencies > to be installed greedily, then they should probably not be in the common > repo, and suggest they just have their own, where they can do what they want > with their metadata and not conflict with other participants. I'm open to > discussion, but don't see how the conflicting specifications could ever work. > > > it's not as bad as missing about.html files or unsigned jars, isn't it? > > Right, not as bad as missing about.html files ... and, I don't know ... > almost as bad as unsigned jars :) > > Thanks to all, > > > > <graycol.gif>"Oberhuber, Martin" ---05/24/2012 09:59:53 AM---Hmm, I thought > we had been through all that discussion on bugzilla already (I can't find the > ref ri > > From: "Oberhuber, Martin" <[email protected]> > To: Cross project issues <[email protected]>, > Date: 05/24/2012 09:59 AM > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Yet another nag note ... and, I > mean it this time! > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > Hmm, > > I thought we had been through all that discussion on bugzilla already (I > can't find the ref right now since bugzilla is down). > > In a nutshell, > > - Optional greedy is bad since it can cause side-effects : > When I install A and optional greedy B,C happen to be available they get > installed even when I don't ask for them, causing unexpected side-effects. > > - Yes Optional non-greedy has no effect on the installer; > But, the p2 metadata also serves as documenting the OSGi/runtime > dependencies from all MANIFEST.MF in a repo so having it in there is extra > information that may help some and doesn't hurt. > > Martin > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas > Hallgren > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 3:37 PM > To: Cross project issues > Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Yet another nag note ... and, I mean > it this time! > > On 05/24/2012 03:13 PM, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote: > > Am 24.05.2012 14:57, schrieb Thomas Hallgren: > >> One could very well argue that an optional non-greedy dependency is > >> completely useless and doesn't fulfill any other purpose but documentation. > > We have a bunch of bundles in place that have optional non-greedy > > dependencies to allow flexibility at runtime. For example, Logback can > > be configured via API, XML or Groovy. Groovy as well as XML > > configuration require additional dependencies. Imaging all those > > dependencies were greedy. > Then they would be installed of course. Now they are not installed and the > dependencies have no purpose aside from what I mentioned earlier, > documentation. > > > BTW, they need to be optional for the bundles to properly resolve if > > the dependencies aren't there. They need to be declared to allow the > > bundle class loader to load them if they are available. > To my knowledge, the bundle class loader is using the MANIFEST.MF, not the p2 > meta-data. So my argument still stands. > > - thomas > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
