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

Bug 322513

Summary:	JDT source code is not distributed with package "Eclipse for RCP and RAP developers"
Product:	[Technology] EPP	Reporter:	Petar Petrov <petar.petrov>
Component:	rcp-package	Assignee:	Project Inbox <epp.packager-inbox>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3	CC:	mknauer, remy.suen
Version:	1.3.0
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows XP
Whiteboard:

Description Petar Petrov

2010-08-12 07:51:08 EDT

Build Identifier: I20100608-0911

The page http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/compare.php states that the Eclipse package for RCP/Plugin developers should include the JDT sources, but they are missing from the Helios release

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Download the Helios "Eclipse for RCP and RAP developers" package from the official download location (http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/technology/epp/downloads/release/helios/R/eclipse-rcp-helios-win32.zip) 
2. Unpack it in a folder

Result:
The feature org.eclipse.jdt.source_3.6.0.v20100526-0800-7z8XFUJFMTfCWGoVuHImpms9H155 is missing from the distribution, as well as all plug-ins that contain the source code for JDT.

Comment 1 Remy Suen

2010-08-12 07:56:22 EDT

EPP packages are handled by...EPP.

Comment 2 Markus Knauer

2010-08-12 14:03:44 EDT

This has been discussed in several places, e.g. in this bug:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=230357#c11

Our thinking was/is that with the new "import as" > "project from a repository" (e.g. in the plug-ins view) it is better to safe the space and to educate the users how they can make use of the new import methods. The other improvements in Helios should allow users to create and to define a target in a much easier way (based on directories, p2 repositories, etc.) and developing against a well defined target is always the cleaner way compared to a development against the runtime environment of the IDE itself.

I take it as an action item to ask the webmasters to change the comparison between the packages. The fact that the sources are missing is intentional, so I am closing this bug for now.

Comment 3 Remy Suen

2010-08-12 14:08:15 EDT

(In reply to comment #2)
> The fact that the sources are missing is intentional

If it's intentional, then could you update the comparison page so that the checkmark isn't orange? It is spreading false information at the moment.