Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 322831 - Provide a way to create different profiles in the same install
Summary: Provide a way to create different profiles in the same install
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Equinox
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: p2 (show other bugs)
Version: 3.6   Edit
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: P2 Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL: http://wiki.eclipse.org/Indigo/HowToA...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-08-16 15:28 EDT by Paul Webster CLA
Modified: 2012-04-30 09:45 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Paul Webster CLA 2010-08-16 15:28:23 EDT
I use the director to build either the 3.6 eclipse SDK or the 4.0 eclipse SDK, usually with the standard SDKProfile.

I need to be able to create 2 runnable profiles from the same install:

ex: SDKProfile for 3.6 with org.eclipse.ui.workbench 3.6.0 and SDKProfile40 for 4.0 with org.eclipse.ui.workbench 3.100.0  Almost all of the other bundles are the same between the 2 profiles (and so presumably can be in the single bundle pool).  Each profile contains a different version of the top level product, org.eclipse.sdk.ide.

Profiles are not runnable by themselves, but I was not able to find a way to generate different eclipse/<configuration> directories to contain the different config.ini files (with potentially different eclipse.p2.profile=SDKProfile and other properties, like the bundles.info)

The goal in this is to provide an eclipse 3.7 SDK install that can (with a slight change) launch in 4.1 with e4 + compatibility mode.

PW
Comment 1 Pascal Rapicault CLA 2012-04-28 21:45:42 EDT
I would do that by using the bundle pool argument on the director application, and do two calls to create two different install folders.
You would end up with

eclipse/
  p2/
  plugins/
    ...
  features/
    ...    
  e4/
    configuration/
  e3/
    configuration


What I'm not sure about here is whether the paths would be relative.
Comment 2 Paul Webster CLA 2012-04-30 08:04:02 EDT
(In reply to comment #1)
> 
> What I'm not sure about here is whether the paths would be relative.

We found out when trying to create multiple architectures within one zip that you can get most of the way there using the pattern you describe, but you end up with absolute paths.

See bug 344153, bug 344155, and bug 342156

PW
Comment 3 Pascal Rapicault CLA 2012-04-30 09:45:29 EDT
Thx for the references.