Community
Participate
Working Groups
I'm using Eclipse 3.7M7. I have a target platform that points to the Indigo P2 repository that contains org.apache.lucene 1.9.1 and 2.9.1. I have a .product that depends on org.eclipse.help.base which requires lucene 2.9.1 and when I attempt to build that product, I get the following error message: Missing requirement: Help System Base 3.6.0v201103101119 (org.eclipse.help.base 3.6.0v201103101119) requires 'bundle org.apache.lucene [2.9.0,3.0.0)' but it could not be found. Double checking the Taret Platform State view shows that both lucene 2.9.1 and lucene 1.9.1 are present. I've hacked around this problem by removing lucene 1.9.1 from the .bundle_pool/plugins.
Curtis suggested unchecking "Generate metadata repository" as a workaround and that allows the product to build successfully.
The lucene bundle is included from the target platform and is not built by pde build. Since it is not build, no metadata is generated for it. PDE UI is supposed to be sending metadata information for the target if it is available. However, because the target in this case was a remote repository, we don't pass the URIs to the operation. See FeatureExportOperation#getMetadataContextFromTargetPlatform and TargetMetadataCollector#getMetadataRepositories 1) Can we make it easier to find the cause of this message? We are limited because the error is coming from p2. 2) Andrew, have your thoughts changed on passing remote URIs in from the target platform? I know we avoided it previously as downloading can be quite slow.
The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is why removing 1.9.1 helps anything. I'm not really sure we want to use the remote URI. I wonder if when the target is created, could we make a local mirror of the metadata of the bundles that are being included in the target. We can then pass this local mirror to PDE/Build. Whenever the user updates/changes the bundles install from some remote URI, we just throw away the local mirror and create a new one.
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. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. 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.
