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

Bug 309863

Summary:	[target] When provisioning a target from a p2 repo, prevent errors about missing A.PDE.Target.Platform
Product:	[Eclipse Project] PDE	Reporter:	Thomas Watson <tjwatson>
Component:	UI	Assignee:	PDE-UI-Inbox <pde-ui-inbox>
Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3	CC:	b.muskalla, curtis.windatt.public, gunnar, jeffmcaffer, jingweno
Version:	3.6
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Mac OS X - Carbon (unsup.)
Whiteboard:	stalebug

Description Thomas Watson

2010-04-20 15:42:45 EDT

This is releated to bug276000 but I wanted to open this issue in a separate bug to get an isolated discussion and hopefully a resolution in 3.6.

Consider the case were we are provisioning a target with an feature IU with the following in their p2.inf:

requires.1.namespace=A.PDE.Target.Platform.
requires.1.name=Do.not.install.in.IDE
requires.1.range=[0.0.0,0.0.0]

The current behavior will cause an error to occur if the option 'Include required software' is enabled.  Is there something PDE could do to mock up an IU which provides this capability and feed it to the planner when provisioning a target?  Is the current code working as designed?  Do we expect this to fail unless you uncheck 'Include required software'?

Comment 1 Jingwen Owen Ou

2010-10-25 17:55:19 EDT

It also causes problem when trying to use Tycho to build a RAP app. Details can be found here: https://issues.sonatype.org/browse/TYCHO-477 .

Comment 2 Jeff McAffer

2010-10-26 10:41:08 EDT

Agreed.  I thought that PDE was going to be supplying the required capability.

Comment 3 Eclipse Webmaster

2019-09-06 16:09:17 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 4 Julian Honnen

2019-09-09 02:23:52 EDT

Please remove the stalebug flag, if this issue is still relevant and can be reproduced on the latest release.

Comment 5 Thomas Watson

2019-09-09 09:04:22 EDT

At this point I would say this is wontfix.  It doesn't seem to be a blocker for anyone to justify the work required to fix.