Community
Participate
Working Groups
In bug 396653 there were some issues introduced via one file system fragment for sparcv9. While that may not have been a valid thing to add, one thought I has was to add "sparcv9" to my little test of the Eclipse-only aggregation file I have, to see "is that a valid configuration from the aggregators point of view". The answer undoubtedly would have been "no", since there is no launcher for it, BUT ... the point of this bug ... the aggregator would not even accept it as a "legal value" for that field. I've learned that it is a "legal value" and that the most complete list of legal values can be found in http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/Reference I'm thinking the aggregator defines those "legal values" in is EMF model, and wondering if that definition should be expanded to include sparcv9 as well as any others that are listed in the OSGi reference? While there's no immediately plans to provide that configuration for Sim. Release, it sounds like in theory it could be added in future. Not to mention, people could use the aggregator for things besides the Sim. Release! What do you think? Worth while?
I added the Sparcv9 to the set of valid architectures. I didn't add all listed entries because in order to be meaningful we must know the exact tag that Eclipse will use. I assume small-caps sparcv9 in this case.
I've added Tom Watson in case he wants to comment, but pretty sure eclipse would always use complete lower case (since the OSGi field is "case insensitive", makes it easier to have defined as lower case, and then "lowercase" any user found value to see if matches). [But, Tom is on vacation, so doubt this will rise to his attention when he gets back unless more values are important to someone else.] Thanks for adding sparcv9!
[Bookkeeping change only. Moving bugs to the new "home" of aggregator, CBI. No change to assignee for resolved and verified bugs.]
