Ah, so that's your question. Well, then I can definitely say I don't know
the answer.
I suspect your right, it's related to if a feature has a "branding bundle"
(or direct descendent of one that does) ... I know "root feature" also
play a role (at least on that "overview" page ... but, in many cases, I
don't think "we" want to show users ALL features ... There's just be too
many.
I do know that "source features (and bundles)" are deliberately not shown
(as being too much clutter) but ... I'm not sure what mechanism
accomplishes that (because when we first moved to Tycho, they were
displayed, and I forget the bug number and the fix "they" had to make to
get them recognized and not displayed.
For debugging, I always ask for the "Configuration" page, which I do think
has a "complete list" of features and plugins (search for '***').
Hope that helps, and perhaps another reader can answer your question more
directly.
From: Ed Willink <e...@willink.me.uk>
To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>,
Date: 05/25/2014 02:22 AM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights and
org.eclipse.license
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
Hi David
Let me try a simpler question since we seem to be being confused by P2
repositories and the running installation.
What is the purpose of the Eclipse SDK Installation Details Features page?
My expectation is that it should list every feature that is successfully
installed/resolved in the running installation. Further I expect that the
plugin details button enable me to identify every plugin associated with
the feature.
Currently many features are not listed and many plugins are not shown, so
either my expectation or the page is at fault.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 25/05/2014 07:05, David M Williams wrote:
Ed, I don't really know the answer to some of your questions (not sure I
understand what question you have, exactly) ... but, pretty sure it not a
"a bug in the Features page". One of the reasons some reports are given
as they are, is that some may have use for p2 repositories and their
metadata "above and beyond" how Eclipse specifically uses them. To quote
the p2 wiki: "Although p2 has specific support for installing Eclipse and
Equinox-based applications, it includes a general-purpose provisioning
infrastructure that can be used as the basis for provisioning solutions
for a wide variety of software applications."
So, yes, some reports are not that important for the "Simultaneous
Release" per se ... but ... might be important for a "perfect repository"
(which in theory, could be used by some other client ... though I know of
no specific ones). That's why I always try emphasize only the most
important ones, in my notes, and the order the reports are listed, and
remind everyone if you find the other useful, fine, if not, then you can
ignore them. I appreciate that "Buckminster" is making good use of it for
project builds, which is great, and I'm sure if some reports "get in the
way" someone will figure out a good patch to allow some report or test to
be "configured". (I've heard of "requests" for that ... but, don't think
anyone has opened a specific bug on it).
Hope that helps, a little.
From: Ed Willink <e...@willink.me.uk>
To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>,
Date: 05/24/2014 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights and
org.eclipse.license
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
Hi David
'properties' is sort of the answer, but it's more mysterious.
----
I have been reviewing the Eclipse SDK Installation Details Features page
since this is the only place where I think users get to see a formatted
feature copyright.
I'm puzzled since I found it difficult to understand what this page
actually displays. Far from displaying all installed features, as I
assumed, it appears to show:
- all features that either have an explicit branding plugin or a plugin
with the same id as the feature (? an implicit branding plugin).
- copyright details taken from the 'branding' plugin featureText property.
There are therefore a large number of installed features that are not
displayed. (Over 50% for my projects).
copyright text in feature.properties is redundant, since only the branding
plug about.properties is used.
----
It seems that every feature should have a branding plugin to populate the
Eclipse SDK Installation Details Features page using
- about.ini with an aboutText=%featureText property
- about.properties with a featureText=... property
----
Back to my original question.
It seems that there should be a
copyright=...
in every feature.properties in order to silence the Buckminster warning.
The text of this copyright is only visible by manually reading the
properties file (or perhaps using a properties file API).
----
Is the above analysis correct and if so how much of it is a bug in the
Features page?
Regards
Ed Willink
On 08/05/2014 15:25, David M Williams wrote:
Ed,
Not sure ... of the answer, or what you are asking, but will answer
anyway, and maybe I'll get lucky :)
As with "license" (SUA) text, there are actually two sources ... one in
property files, and one in repository metadata (in content.jar/xml). Since
that report mentions "repo" at the top, believe its looking at repository
data.
Whereas in Eclipse SDK "about" it's probably coming from property file.
If I recall, from top of my head, in most cases in "Eclipse UI", there are
few (or no?) places to see the copyright as it appears in repository --
for bundles -- (perhaps in runtime targets -- not sure) ... so the report
is probably not that useful -- for bundles ... but, features can display
their "copyright" before you install something ... and that comes from
content.xml/jar file. But, once installed, it comes from properties file.
I think (again, depending on my poor memory) the one in property files
"comes from" what's defined for plugin.xml, but the one in metadata comes
from an OSGi header in bundle ... that few people use.
= = == = = = = =
Christian,
I'm no lawyer :) but you are probably correct they'd find it a "valid"
copyright statement.
... I have a question. Why does the word „Copyright“ has to be at the
beginning and why does it make a difference if it is not ?
org.eclipse.riena.build.feature.core.sdk.e4.feature.group
6.0.0.v20140506_6_0_0_M7b
*******************************************************************************
* Copyright (c) 2007 - 2013 compeople AG and others. * All rights
reserved. This program and the accompanying materials * are made available
under the terms of the Eclipse Public License v1.0 * which accompanies
this distribution, and is available at *
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html * * Contributors: * compeople AG
- initial API and implementation
*******************************************************************************
But, I am a human, and can definitively say it does not look pretty! :)
On the one hand, the report is doing you a favor since such lines often
indicate an "end of line" or "extra" continuation character got added.
That is, doubt you intended to have so many asterisks at the beginning of
your copyright statement. Did you?
And on the other hand, I think I'm just looking for something that
approaches the Eclipse Foundation's "standard" display ... such as see
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc.php section 4.3, Features
Licenses and Feature Update Licenses. I other words, I think best if we
all had a consistent, professional look to such "copyright" statements (at
the bottom of that figure). Does yours look ok, there, or do you see the
string of asterisks?
= = = = = =
All, these reports are intended to help you. They are not perfect.
Improvements welcome. And if you don't find them useful, you can ignore
them. Well, except for a few cases. We'll soon start to "fail builds" if
"legal files" missing, etc. but doubt we ever would "fail" for
"indeterminate" cases of copyright's ... but ... might, someday, not for
June, if missing completely.
Thanks,
From: Ed Willink <e...@willink.me.uk>
To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>,
Date: 05/08/2014 08:12 AM
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights and
org.eclipse.license
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
Hi David
While checking
http://build.eclipse.org/simrel/luna/reporeports/reports/copyrights.html,
I see that my plugins are reported as
"Indeterminant: feature's copyright text contains the word 'copyright' but
not at beginning:"
which seems to be the same story as Hudson complaining that %copyright is
undefined when re-using org.eclipse.license.
However when I check the copyrights in Eclipse SDK Installation
Details|Features it seems that something has done a good job of deducing
the copyright as:
(c) Copyright Eclipse contributors and others. 2003, 2014. All rights
reserved.
Visit https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.mdt.ocl
so I was impressed and ignored the Hudson warnings.
If there is clever code providing the copyright, why doesn't your report
find it?
Any idea where the clever code is?
Regards
Ed Willink_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3931/7457 - Release Date: 05/07/14
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3950/7555 - Release Date: 05/24/14
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
