Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 212477

Summary: [repository] Simple artifact repo and artifacts as folders
Product: [Eclipse Project] Equinox Reporter: Pascal Rapicault <pascal>
Component: p2Assignee: P2 Inbox <equinox.p2-inbox>
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX QA Contact:
Severity: enhancement    
Priority: P3 CC: Ed.Merks, irbull, jeffmcaffer
Version: 3.4Keywords: helpwanted
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: PC   
OS: Windows XP   
Whiteboard:

Description Pascal Rapicault CLA 2007-12-10 20:09:13 EST 
The current implementation of the simple artifact repository tries to be helpful and redistributes the artifacts it has stored as folders. It is doing that by rezipping the folder on the fly.
Even though this turns out to be helpful in some scenarios (e.g. reinstalling eclipse into a new bundle pool from an existing bundle pool), it is also "dangereous" since the repo can not guarantee that it will redistribute the same artifact that it had first served (e.g. the end user could have went into the folder and added more files or tweaked some).
I wonder if we really want to keep supporting this.
Comment 1 John Arthorne CLA 2007-12-11 22:26:02 EST 
Presumably a checksum could ensure that the correct artifact is still available.
Comment 2 Jeff McAffer CLA 2008-02-09 10:15:02 EST 
this feels either like a feature that needs to be fixed (made more robust as John suggests) or removed.  Which are you after here?  Does anyone rely on this behaviour?
Comment 3 Pascal Rapicault CLA 2008-02-13 21:51:53 EST 
Nothing actually depends on this feature, however it is one of which that turns out to be pretty useful because I can point at any bundle pool and create a new standalone install from it without ever contacting the network (or close to it).

If we decide to cut this support, we have to make sure that even though the artifact can not be downloaded, we can still find a file to it (see IFileArtifactRepository).
Comment 4 Eclipse Webmaster CLA 2019-09-06 16:09:53 EDT 
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet.

If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.
Comment 5 Ed Merks CLA 2020-02-21 02:02:04 EST 
I don't understand what is actionable here.