As I wrote in my earlier mail: The RCP/RAP package installs *all* features as root features, all other packages have only a single root feature defined by EPP. There's no version restriction involved or enforced.
Regards, Markus On 23 September 2015 at 22:24, Max Rydahl Andersen <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe EPP in their features can be less restrictive and allow for > version ranges in what the root feature will allow. > > Maybe that is what the RCP EPP package do ? > > If yes,then I can tell that is how we for Developer Studio allow updates > of certain features (like egit and m2e) to avoid having to release the main > feature all the time. > > /max > > Ah, that's it. Perfect. Thanks Markus! >> >> IMHO, we should make this mandatory for all packages and have someone >> just go in and do it. >> >> Doug. >> >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected] [ >> [email protected]] on behalf of Markus Knauer >> [[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:44 PM >> To: Cross project issues >> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] New components in Mars.1 (was Re: >> Eclipse Mars 1 RC4 issue with Buildship / workspace prompt) >> >> *** Automatically check for updates: >> >> That's enabled in all packages, and all of them are looking for updates >> of their root feature(s) once every week. >> >> *** Package structure: >> >> All Mars packages (with the exception of the RCP/RAP package) are using a >> single root feature that is checked for a higher version. This root feature >> is an EPP feature and controlled by the package maintainers. In theory it >> could be updated and the respective package would be updated with the new >> content. Of course, this works only if the update content is available from >> one of the p2 repositories built into the packages (which is the >> Simultaneous Release p2 repository). >> >> The RCP/RAP package structure has changed with Mars, as an experiment in >> order to get some experience and as a way to "convince" others in the Neon >> timeframe to change the package structure of the remaining packages. In >> this package *all* content features are installed as root features and >> therefore checked for updates. >> >> Personally I think that's the way to go for all packages. The fact that >> it is enabled in RCP/RAP gives us a chance to get some experience in order >> to roll it out for all packages in the Neon timeframe. >> >> Regards, >> Markus >> >> >> On 23 September 2015 at 21:31, Doug Schaefer <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> Step 1 - test to see whether it works. Anecdotal evidence says it >> doesn't. Something about how the EPP packages are defined and built. Also >> projects need to make sure the URLs for maintenance p2 sites are correct >> and enabled by default. >> >> The Check for Updates including the auto check feature itself works. >> We've used it for years in our commercial product. Just need to make sure >> everything is set up correctly for the packages. >> >> I'm also not sure (and actually doubt) auto check is turned on in all the >> packages so that when users start them up and/or on regular intervals it >> does a check and prompts the user to install the updates. >> >> This has to be the default behavior without the user having to do >> anything. That way the user could have installed Mars.1 and then when they >> start up they would have been prompted to install the update for Buildship >> any other feature that happened to have updates out by then. >> >> We talked about this at the architecture call. Not sure it got captured >> in the minutes there. But this is the general idea. >> >> Doug. >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: [email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]> [ >> [email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>] on behalf of Pascal >> Rapicault [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:18 PM >> To: [email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] New components in Mars.1 (was Re: >> Eclipse Mars 1 RC4 issue with Buildship / workspace prompt) >> >> I was about to ask the same :) >> >> On 15-09-23 02:54 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote: >> >>> On 23/09/2015 1:49 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote: >>> >>>> if we could ever get Check for Updates working properly, this >>>> wouldn't have been such a big issue. >>>> >>> >>> Doug (or anyone) >>> >>> Is there a written proposal anywhere on how "Check for Updates" should >>> be modified? >>> >>> Is there an existing consensus around such a proposal? >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]> >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe >> from this list, visit >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]> >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe >> from this list, visit >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe >> from this list, visit >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev >> > > > /max > http://about.me/maxandersen > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected] > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe > from this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev >
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
