Community
Participate
Working Groups
from http://build.eclipse.org/technology/epp/epp_build/36/download/20110211-0533/ The Java EE and JavaScript packages (at least) do not have any "product customization" ... in particular: welcome screen (for Java EE), about box, default perspective.
Similarly, the eclipse.ini seems to be a "small" one (from eclipse sdk?) instead of what was in SR1: Compare: (<)C:\temp\eclipseJEE\eclipse.ini (291 bytes) with: (>)C:\builds\JEEIDEHeliosSR1\eclipse\eclipse.ini (441 bytes) 1,4c1,10 < -startup < plugins/org.eclipse.equinox.launcher_1.1.1.R36x_v20101122_1400.jar < --launcher.library < plugins/org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.win32.win32.x86_1.1.2.R36x_v20101222 --- > -startup > plugins/org.eclipse.equinox.launcher_1.1.0.v20100507.jar > --launcher.library > plugins/org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.win32.win32.x86_1.1.1.R36x_v20100810 > -product > org.eclipse.epp.package.jee.product > --launcher.defaultAction > openFile > --launcher.XXMaxPermSize > 256M 12,13c18,20 < -Xms40m < -Xmx384m --- > -Dosgi.requiredJavaVersion=1.5 > -Xms40m > -Xmx512m
(In reply to comment #0) > from > http://build.eclipse.org/technology/epp/epp_build/36/download/20110211-0533/ > > The Java EE and JavaScript packages (at least) do not have any "product > customization" ... in particular: welcome screen (for Java EE), about box, > default perspective. We have tested here and all these also happens on the Pulsar package. Thanks, Daniel Pastore Sequoyah Team
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #0) > > The Java EE and JavaScript packages (at least) do not have any "product > > customization" ... in particular: welcome screen (for Java EE), about box, > > default perspective. > > We have tested here and all these also happens on the Pulsar package. > Same for the SOA package. Seems to be a general problem.
As far as I could see this is a general problem that affected *all* packages that were not identical to the build platform, i.e. every package that was not linux|gtk|x86_64. This is not only the platform of the build server, but also the platform that I was using locally to test the package. And that was the reason why I didn't see the problem... The package content seems to be correct, but the difference is the unmodified eclipse.ini that was the one from Eclipse RCP/Platform.
The old builds (i.e. all builds until Helios SR2 RC2) were based on buckminster.cmdline.product and other Buckminster features in version 1.1.350.r10510, all of them were installed in the epp-repository-build-helios Hudson build job from a locally cached / backed up version of the main Buckminster p2 repository. Unfortunately I deleted this repository last week in my attempt to free as much disk space as possible. On 2011-02-09 I changed the configuration of the repository build to take the 3.5 version from the main Buckminster p2 repository which brought us a working version with a higher qualifier (org.eclipse.buckminster.cmdline.product 1.1.350.r11146). From my point of view this is the only change that could have caused this problem, because nothing else changed... Because I wasn't able to restore the old working version nor I could find the r10510 version in the archives, I moved forward and took the same version that is in use in the Indigo builds. A test build of two packages was successful and I wasn't able to find the old problems in the Linux 32-bit packages any more, but I had no possibility to test other platforms so far. A rebuild of all packages is running: http://build.eclipse.org/technology/epp/epp_build/36/download/20110213-1651/ Maybe someone else can test some of the other packages and can confirm that they are working again?
(In reply to comment #5) > > A rebuild of all packages is running: > http://build.eclipse.org/technology/epp/epp_build/36/download/20110213-1651/ > > Maybe someone else can test some of the other packages and can confirm that > they are working again? The Java EE and JavaScript IDE packages once again have customization. I checked windows 32 bit for both. Thanks! (Is there a buckminster bug we should report? on retention policy?)
This was fixed, as previously described.
