| Summary: | Unsigned code error during installation of EMF update. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Modeling] EMF | Reporter: | congruwer |
| Component: | Core | Assignee: | Ed Merks <Ed.Merks> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | major | ||
| Priority: | P3 | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
congruwer
Correction: the first phrase of 2) should read: The update was released signed, ... EMF 2.2.5? That was long before we even started to support signing of jars at Eclipse. Possibly, but I can't know that. In any case, this was the version the updater tried to download. I don't know if the updater is downloading this file in error (i.e. that it should be downloading a more recent version) or because it wants to incrementally update or something, but whatever the case may be, the fact remains that the update the updater wants to download should be signed. If it is really necessary to download an update from before code signing in some cases, that just means that such updates need to get signed, even if signing was not supported at the moment when they were originally released. In any case, that means we are more or less in scenario 1) and that means that this bug is still valid, so I'm reopening it. There's just not enough information to reproduce a problem. You don't specify what you have installed already, only that you're updating it. In any case, if you have something really old installed that depends on EMF 2.2.x so the updater wants to update to EMF 2.2.5 (which is what this sounds like), then what's happening correct behavior. And yes, EMF 2.2.5 isn't signed nor will we ever be spinning another version of 2.2.x that would be signed. It has become clear that people here aren't interested in fixing problems. I have disabled bugmail; I would appreciate it if an administrator would properly disable my account. |