Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | RTP packages on the download page? | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | z_Archived | Reporter: | Markus Knauer <mknauer> | ||||
| Component: | RTP | Assignee: | Nathan Gervais <nathan> | ||||
| Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | holger.staudacher, ian.skerrett, nathan | ||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | Other | ||||||
| OS: | other | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Markus Knauer
Sounds like I'd need to adapt the packaging site to read these in. Are they on the same release cycle as the other packages? Were we to move these to /downloads would all 3 downloads need to appear? I think we could use something very similar to the virtual package that we defined for the Classic/SDK. But we need to make sure that these RTP packages can be distinguished from the other EPP packages, i.e. it must be clear that these packages do not contain something like an IDE. My understanding is that the RTP packages have the same release cycle as all other EPP packages, which means that they are aligned with the Simultaneous Release (R - SR1 - SR2). Personally I wouldn't put all of them to /downloads - but I think we need more input and more ideas from the project and from the community here. (In reply to comment #2) > > Personally I wouldn't put all of them to /downloads - but I think we need more > input and more ideas from the project and from the community here. Holger, do you have any comments? I also noticed the examples are not finished. I think it will be important to have some good 'getting started' documentation and examples so people understand the purpose of these packages. @Markus: Yes, the RT Packages have the same release Cycle as the EPP Packages. @Ian: I would put "the RT Package" (it's the RT basic package) on the download site for indigo. Regarding the examples. They will be ready by the GA date at the latest. Regarding the getting started guides. They are finished at least for the packages. But not for some EclipseRT Technology. I think it depends on the foundation if the package will be promoted on the download page or not. From my point of view the package is ready and can be used as it is. Created attachment 197047 [details]
initial fake package definition for the Basic RT package
I started to define an initial fake package definition for the Basic RT package, just to get a feeling about what's missing.
* bugzillaComponentId - not really compatible with the existing system since RTP has its own bugtracking and I don't see any advantages to add just another one for the RTP packages in EPP; we could leave it empty for now.
* FakePackageLocation - should work
* NewAndNoteworthy - not yet provided by the project, maybe we should consider providing a N&N that we can link to
* product name="..." - this is something where we have a real deviation from the other packages since this one is platform independent and has no os/arch/windowing system abbreviations in its file name
@Holger: Can you have a look at it?
Hi Markus, jfyi: we have a N&N. You can find it here: http://eclipse.org/rtp/noteworthy/ What needs to be done is aggregating the Equinox, p2, jetty new and noteworthy and include it because we only ship these technologies. I will take a look at the fake package this evening. (In reply to comment #6) > What needs to be done is aggregating the Equinox, p2, jetty new and noteworthy > and include it because we only ship these technologies. We could list all three of them, shouldn't be a problem and others are doing exactly this. Sounds great. For the basic package we only need equinox and p2. For the web package (when it goes to the download page one day) we need jetty too. Hi Markus, here is my feedback regarding the fake definition: - packageName: Do we need to include (incubation) here? - maintainer -> should be Runtime Packaging Project - FakePackageLocation -> can be RC3 now: /rtp/incubation/updates/3.7milestones/0.1.0.v20110601-0820-RC3/ - NewAndNoteworthy: As discussed above - product: Can be rt-basic-incubation-0.1.0.v20110601-0820-RC3 now - We need to change the comments because they talk about the classic SDK I also have some questions: - rcp version="RC2" -> what does this mean? - I noticed that there is not link to the archives, does this mean the user can't download the package directly. I think it would be necessary to provide a one click download to the users. Thats it ;) Thanks for creating this draft. Nathan, I prepared a new version of the XML file that describes RT Basic Package. It will be available at the usual place with todays Indigo RC4 release, staging.xml is already updated with the pointer to the new package locations. * The name of the XML file is 'rt.xml' - if you have other needs for the file name please let me know. * The icon location points to a URL of the RTP project; we can (should!) change this as soon as you copy the icon to /downloads/images/ * It is a 'FakePackage', i.e. it is not in the standard EPP download location, but in the download area of the RTP project (/rtp/incubation/updates/...) * There is no platform dependency! Currently there are two versions available (rt-basic-incubation-0.1.0.v20110608-0924-RC4.tar.gz and rt-basic-incubation-0.1.0.v20110608-0924-RC4.zip) with the same content, but one of them as ZIP archive, the other one as tar.gz. There is now win32, no linux, not gtk, no macosx, ... it's just those two files that are provided. * We really need to have a clear separation between the EPP packages (all of them are IDE-like packages that can be 'installed' and used by an end-user) and the RTP package (a package that can be used to develop and to deploy server-side applications). (In reply to comment #3) > I also noticed the examples are not finished. > I think it will be important to have some good 'getting started' > documentation and examples so people understand the purpose of these packages. Holger told me yesterday, that the examples are available - see http://eclipse.org/rtp/examples/ I'd like to re-discuss this in order to have a solution in the Juno timeframe... does that sound feasible? |