I would suggest trying 3.4M7 where that bug was first fixed, or just move up to 3.4. Or if there are other problems upgrading, try at least taking org.eclipse.update.core from 3.4
-Andrew Janet Dmitrovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/09/2008 05:29 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] normalized jar The build is using eclipse-SDK-I20071127-0800-win32 ( to do the normalization and signing ) this looks to be a milestone build of 3.4 They had some issue moving up to the 3.4 GM level. I am using eclipes 20080617 for packing. All of our jars contain eclipse.inf with "pack200.conditioned=true" Janet Dmitrovich WPLC Expeditor Software Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512-838-4912 T/L:678-4912 FAX:512-838-3703 11501 Burnet Road, Austin TX 78758 (Internal ZIP: 9372) Andrew Niefer ---10/07/2008 05:38:19 PM---Which version of the jarprocessor are you using? Andrew Niefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/07/2008 05:37 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] normalized jar Which version of the jarprocessor are you using? There was a bug (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=226850) fixed in 3.4. This was leading to verification errors on the META-INF/eclipse.inf files. Though if I remember correctly, it could have potentially led to different pack effort levels used on the pack step compared to the conditioning step which might affect .class files. The org.eclipse.equinox.p2.jarprocessor contains a Verifier class which will unpack pack.gz files and verify their signatures. It has a static main method that you can run. If you have the conditioned jars from before packing, they should contain an eclipse.inf file containing "pack200.conditioned=true". Janet Dmitrovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/07/2008 05:55 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] normalized jar Hi thanks for the reply Andrew. "If you are getting differences after unpack, you may not actually be using pack200 conditioned/normalized jars, or something went wrong in that -repack normalization step." So I am finding differences in the jar sizes ( pre and post pack ) I'm fairly certain that I am using pack200 conditioned/normalized jars, since they were built with the "-repack" option. >> Is there some way to validate this? >>What type if things could go wrong in the -repack/ normalization step. Janet Dmitrovich WPLC Expeditor Software Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512-838-4912 T/L:678-4912 FAX:512-838-3703 11501 Burnet Road, Austin TX 78758 (Internal ZIP: 9372) Andrew Niefer ---10/07/2008 04:24:57 PM---The contents of the jar should be bit-wise the same, so the only difference between pre & post pack (for a previously condition Andrew Niefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/07/2008 04:18 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] normalized jar The contents of the jar should be bit-wise the same, so the only difference between pre & post pack (for a previously conditioned jar), if any, would be in the format of the jar itself. Differences could be, for example, in size & crc information for a given zip entry appearing before or after the entry itself. I'm not sure that these differences would amount to a size difference for the jar. In the case of nested jars which are checked against their containers, we do need the jars to be bitwise the same even in jar format. For this reason, the jarProcessor in eclipse does an additional "normalization" step which is different from the pack200 -repack conditioning. If you are getting differences after unpack, you may not actually be using pack200 conditioned/normalized jars, or something went wrong in that -repack normalization step. -Andrew Janet Dmitrovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/07/2008 03:58 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject [equinox-dev] normalized jar Should the size of the jar ( Normalized and signed jar ) be the same pre-packand post-unpack ? Janet Dmitrovich WPLC Expeditor Software Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512-838-4912 T/L:678-4912 FAX:512-838-3703 11501 Burnet Road, Austin TX 78758 (Internal ZIP: 9372) _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
<<image/gif>>
_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
