Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | include 'source' for "new" 4.x 3rd party bundles | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] Platform | Reporter: | David Williams <david_williams> | ||||||
| Component: | Releng | Assignee: | Platform-Releng-Inbox <platform-releng-inbox> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | daniel_megert, pwebster | ||||||
| Version: | 4.2 | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | stalebug | ||||||||
| Bug Depends on: | 402649 | ||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
David Williams
Yep, these are the right 8 for "e4" additions. There's actually a comment in our orbit.map file that says: ! Required for Eclipse 4.2. The following 17 bundles were originally in e4-orbit.map but moved here, since bundles here are excluded from conditioning and signing. See bug 376518 So, 8+8 =16, plus there is "javax.xml" which, in Orbit, has no .source bundle. Now ... to figure out which of those build.properties to include them in. The code versions of all 8 are in the org.eclipse.e4.rcp feature, so these .source bundles would belong in the org.eclipse.e4.rcp.source feature. This is defined in ... /eclipse.platform.releng/features/org.eclipse.rcp/sourceTemplateFeature/build.properties Currently in simple form, as generate.feature@org.eclipse.e4.rcp.source=org.eclipse.e4.rcp So, to include the 8 source bundles, that'd become generate.feature@org.eclipse.e4.rcp.source=org.eclipse.e4.rcp, plugin@javax.annotation.source;unpack="false", plugin@javax.inject.source;unpack="false", plugin@org.apache.batik.css.source;unpack="false", plugin@org.apache.batik.util.gui.source;unpack="false", plugin@org.apache.batik.util.source;unpack="false", plugin@org.w3c.css.sac.source;unpack="false", plugin@org.w3c.dom.smil.source;unpack="false", plugin@org.w3c.dom.svg.source;unpack="false", (Note, in slightly related bug 387052 I maintain its best not to specify versions and (pretty sure) continuation characters are not needed.) I suggest we fix this in maintenance, as well as Kepler, since it would, after all, make long term support better if all the .source was available to those debugging issues. Created attachment 219775 [details]
patch for master branch
The change for R4_2_maintenance would be very similar ... except ...
in master, the version of the feature has already been changed to 4.3.0 (good) but in maintenance, the feature id should be 4.2.1. (currently 4.2.0, pretty sure). The feature version should be update in the pom there, also (whew whew! I noticed!)
Plus, in master, the "eclipse_update_120.jpg" images have been removed ... if it was up to me I'd remove them in maintenance too, since we are making changes anyway (and they no longer are used anywhere, so no chance of "breakage") but ... not sure how strict the rules about "only bug fixes in maintenance, no clean up".
Dani, I don't recall the "rules" right off (i.e. not sure when "review" becomes required) but I would appreciate your review/comments even if not required. Does this seem a worthwhile and safe enough change for maintenance branch? If so, I'd put it in SR1 RC1 (due Wednesday). Created attachment 219776 [details]
corresponding patch for R4_2_maintenance stream
This puts maintenance "in sync" with master, except for exact feature version (4.2.1 vs 4.3.0).
My "fix" didn't work, for some reason. Not sure why. Might, to guess, be related to it being "nested" too deeply? eclipse sdk feature includes rcp.source which includes e4.rcp.source ... but, couldn't seem to find these entries from map file (I did try with version specified and back slash continuation characters, in case they were needed, but didn't seem to matter). Messages below were from "generate script" task. [eclipse.buildScript] Unable to find plug-in: javax.annotation.source_1.0.0.qualifier. Please check the error log for more details. [eclipse.buildScript] Unable to find plug-in: javax.inject.source_1.0.0.qualifier. Please check the error log for more details. [eclipse.buildScript] Unable to find plug-in: org.apache.batik.css.source_1.6.0.qualifier. Please check the error log for more details. [eclipse.buildScript] Unable to find plug-in: org.apache.batik.util.gui.source_1.6.0.qualifier. Please check the error log for more details. [eclipse.buildScript] Unable to find plug-in: org.apache.batik.util.source_1.6.0.qualifier. Please check the error log for more details. [eclipse.buildScript] Unable to find plug-in: org.w3c.dom.smil.source_1.0.0.qualifier. Please check the error log for more details. [eclipse.buildScript] Unable to find plug-in: org.w3c.dom.svg.source_1.1.0.qualifier. Please check the error log for more details. [eclipse.buildScript] Unable to find plug-in: org.w3c.css.sac.source_1.3.1.qualifier. Please check the error log for more details. (In reply to comment #5) > Dani, I don't recall the "rules" right off (i.e. not sure when "review" > becomes required) but I would appreciate your review/comments even if not > required. > > Does this seem a worthwhile and safe enough change for maintenance branch? > If so, I'd put it in SR1 RC1 (due Wednesday). I don't recall why the source is not included. Sometimes legal issues prevent us from distributing it. You should at least double check the corresponding CQs whether they mention such a restriction. If the legal issue is cleared, I don't see any reason speaking against backporting this to 3.8.1 and 4.2.1. > Dani, I don't recall the "rules" right off (i.e. not sure when "review"
> becomes required)
All changes (except doc) to the maintenance branch should be reviewed.
Since my should-be-easy-to-do fixes didn't work, I think this deserves being deferred. (In reply to comment #10) > Since my should-be-easy-to-do fixes didn't work, I think this deserves being > deferred. And you have to do the legal checks as mentioned in comment 8. unsetting target as this doesn't seem high enough priority to worry about now. See bug 402649 for javax.annotations and javax.inject. Doing a mass "reset to default assignee" of 52 bugs to help make clear it will (very likely) not be me working on things I had previously planned to work on. I hope this will help prevent the bugs from "getting lost" in other people's queries. Feel free to "take" a bug if appropriate. 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. As such, we're closing this bug. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it and reopen this bug. 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. -- The automated Eclipse Genie. |
