Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | touch org.eclipse.equinox.server.p2 for new httpcomponents | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] Equinox | Reporter: | David Williams <david_williams> | ||||||
| Component: | Components | Assignee: | Thomas Watson <tjwatson> | ||||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | slewis, tjwatson | ||||||
| Version: | 4.5.0 Mars | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | Mars M4 | ||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Bug Depends on: | 447984, 453677 | ||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
David Williams
Created attachment 249038 [details]
patch to "touch" the feature
The attached patch should suffice.
Or, alternatively, it appears the feature version has not been incremented yet, from 4.4.1 release, where it was 1.2.100.
In that case, a better fix if probably to increment the feature.xml and pom.xml, changing 1.2.100 to 1.2.200.
Created attachment 249039 [details]
improved patch, to increment service field
I think this is better patch, to increment service field, since some of its included bundles have increased service version. (httpcomponents, if nothing else).
Note: we *probably* will end up putting the httpcomponents in SR2, as well.
Don't mean to causes you trouble, but ... I see in our repo from today's I-build, that there is indeed the "server.p2" featured versioned at 1.2.200... but the feature still "includes" httpcomponents at the 4.3.4 and 4.3.2 levels. I am guessing it working this way because ECF has not updated yet ... though, I would have sworn it "worked better than this". I guess that's only when other bundles are pulled in (like we do with Jetty) whereas ECF feature specify an exact version. So, bottom line, once we update ECF, I think you will have to "touch" this feature again. So have added "dependency" on bug 448916. Tom, I have just now updated the ECF contribution to our target file, in both 'master', and R4_4_maintenance! So, you'll need to 'touch' the feature in both streams. For master, we should be fine until the next I-build. (though, sooner the better, for my test builds :) For maintenance, I actually left in the "old" httpcomponents in our .target file, in *addition* to adding the new ones, in case you don't have time before 8 AM to 'touch' the feature before the M-build. (I think in that case, we end up with both versions in our repo, but products such as SDK should just have the newest, since the products don't include "equinox.server.p2". There are several features that "require" ECF, but I don't think anyplace else that "includes" it, so think that part will be ok. Which does make me wonder ... is there a direct need for you to both "require ecf" and "include httpcomponents" in equinox.server.p2? Not sure if that's a historical left-over ... or, if there is some conceptual reason for it? Done in luna with, I incremented the micro version by 1 (missed the M-Build): http://git.eclipse.org/c/equinox/rt.equinox.bundles.git/commit/?h=R4_4_maintenance&id=ed4bd5ac8ec00d58d1cbd2ea0f887d5c5e89d196 Done in master with (did the manual touch since we already increased the version): http://git.eclipse.org/c/equinox/rt.equinox.bundles.git/commit/?id=b39b4587379c6d483b1e48e51c18a11dd34d29f0 (In reply to David Williams from comment #5) > Which does make me wonder ... is there a direct need for you to both > "require ecf" and "include httpcomponents" in equinox.server.p2? Not sure if > that's a historical left-over ... or, if there is some conceptual reason for > it? I don't think so, probably a left-over from when we directly included ecf bundles. I opened bug 454006 for that. |