Community
Participate
Working Groups
Specifically: Unable to find plug-in: org.eclipse.emf.activities_0.0.0. Please check the error log for more details. The main build (sequence of director calls) finishes, and then error pops up while trying to "build a product". Only difference from previous runs (that worked) and this one was the inclusion of buckminster ... and I doubt they are specifying this specific bundle. :) So ... I suspect something else changed ... on an emf update site?
I see now that "davidms" change the galileo map file, plugin.xml, and feature.xml !*** EMF Capabilities ************************************************************* plugin@org.eclipse.emf.activities=HEAD,:pserver:anonymous@dev.eclipse.org:/cvsroot/modeling,,org.eclipse.emf/org.eclipse.emf/examples/org.eclipse.emf.activities Hmmm, I wonder which part of "do not change anything" is not clear. Dave, do you read the cross-project list? If not, please do. At least my posts :) That's our communication channel for build related matters and anyone releasing to galileo is required to subscribe. Thanks,
BTW, I'm sure you'll notice, I reverted all these activity related changes. Please keep them around for when we give "new content" signal ... hopefully mid next week. Thanks.
David, Apologies. Yup, I read your every utterance on the cross-project list, and when you requested no more changes, I asked Nick to disable EMF's automatic per-build contributions. So there's no good explanation for why that request slipped my mind yesterday. Once again, sorry for causing you trouble.
Dave, if you are working this weekend, feel free to re-commit your capabilities. If not (that is, if you read this on Monday) maybe best to supply them here as a patch so they can be applied at a time when not much else is being tested. I'm not sure why it failed the first time, so be sure to double check everything. But, honestly, I'm not sure exactly how this build works, so might have been a timing issue (that is, one project that required it was checked out after the project that provides it).
Created attachment 130951 [details] Patch with my changes Here are the changes that broke Galileo last week. I double checked and I don't see anything obviously wrong. But then, I'm just following a receipe (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Galileo_Capabilities), so I don't have any particular insights. Looking at the log for the failed build, I see that the first related error appears in fetchElement: [exec] [eclipse.fetch] Missing directory entry: plugin@org.eclipse.emf.activities. [exec] [eclipse.fetch] Missing directory entry: bundle@org.eclipse.emf.activities. Then I see there's no FetchFromCVS that gets the plug-in, whereas for org.eclipse.rse.ui.capabilities, for example, which works, there is. And then, of course, failing to get the plug-in from CVS no doubt causes the real error: [exec] /opt/public/galileo/build/galileo/basebuilder/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.pde.build_3.5.0.v20090312-1500/scripts/genericTargets.xml:96: Unable to find plug-in: org.eclipse.emf.activities_0.0.0. Please check the error log for more details.
David, I guess I'll just try committing again and kicking off a build. Maybe it was just a timing issue, as you suggested?
Well, that was quick. https://build.eclipse.org/hudson/job/galileo.build/204/artifact/galileo.build.log.txt Umm...okay, who knows what they're doing? (Not me, clearly.)
(In reply to comment #7) > Well, that was quick. > https://build.eclipse.org/hudson/job/galileo.build/204/artifact/galileo.build.log.txt > > Umm...okay, who knows what they're doing? (Not me, clearly.) > Did you run "generate" first? I did, and then hit "build" and it completed fine, including emf.activities. I have to say though ... if you want to be consistent, shouldn't that be "capabilities"?
Thanks David. I'm glad it's not breaking anything anymore. Regarding the name, we already had a previously existing activities/capabilities example plug-in with that name, and I just adapted it slightly for Galileo. It didn't seem particularly important to change the ID to be consistent. Do you think it is?
(In reply to comment #9) > Thanks David. I'm glad it's not breaking anything anymore. > > Regarding the name, we already had a previously existing > activities/capabilities example plug-in with that name, and I just adapted it > slightly for Galileo. It didn't seem particularly important to change the ID to > be consistent. Do you think it is? > Nah, not very important. Not if it already existed. Just my opinion. Other opinions welcome.
