The build is using eclipse-SDK-I20071127-0800-win32 ( to do the normalization and signing ) this looks to be a milestone build of 3.4 They had some issue moving up to the 3.4 GM level.
I am using eclipes 20080617 for packing.
All of our jars contain eclipse.inf with "pack200.conditioned=true"
Janet Dmitrovich
WPLC Expeditor Software Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
512-838-4912 T/L:678-4912 FAX:512-838-3703
11501 Burnet Road, Austin TX 78758 (Internal ZIP: 9372)
Andrew Niefer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
om> To
Sent by: Equinox development mailing list
equinox-dev-bounc <[email protected]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc
Subject
10/07/2008 05:37 Re: [equinox-dev] normalized jar
PM
Please respond to
Equinox
development
mailing list
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pse.org>
Which version of the jarprocessor are you using?
There was a bug (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=226850)
fixed in 3.4. This was leading to verification errors on the
META-INF/eclipse.inf files. Though if I remember correctly, it could have
potentially led to different pack effort levels used on the pack step
compared to the conditioning step which might affect .class files.
The org.eclipse.equinox.p2.jarprocessor contains a Verifier class which
will unpack pack.gz files and verify their signatures. It has a static
main method that you can run.
If you have the conditioned jars from before packing, they should contain
an eclipse.inf file containing "pack200.conditioned=true".
Janet Dmitrovich
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Equinox development mailing
list <[email protected]>
cc
10/07/2008 05:55 PM
Subject
Re: [equinox-dev] normalized
Please respond to jar
Equinox development mailing list
<[email protected]>
Hi thanks for the reply Andrew.
"If you are getting differences after unpack, you may not actually be using
pack200 conditioned/normalized jars, or something went wrong in that
-repack normalization step."
So I am finding differences in the jar sizes ( pre and post pack )
I'm fairly certain that I am using pack200 conditioned/normalized jars,
since they were built with the "-repack" option.
>> Is there some way to validate this?
>>What type if things could go wrong in the -repack/ normalization step.
Janet Dmitrovich
WPLC Expeditor Software Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
512-838-4912 T/L:678-4912 FAX:512-838-3703
11501 Burnet Road, Austin TX 78758 (Internal ZIP: 9372)
Inactive hide details for Andrew Niefer ---10/07/2008 04:24:57 PM---The
contents of the jar should be bit-wise the same, so theAndrew Niefer
---10/07/2008 04:24:57 PM---The contents of the jar should be bit-wise the
same, so the only difference between pre & post pack (for a previously
condition
Andrew Niefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
10/07/2008 04:18 PM
Equinox development mailing
list <[email protected]>
Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list
<[email protected]> cc
Subject
Re: [equinox-dev] normalized
jar
The contents of the jar should be bit-wise the same, so the only difference
between pre & post pack (for a previously conditioned jar), if any, would
be in the format of the jar itself. Differences could be, for example, in
size & crc information for a given zip entry appearing before or after the
entry itself. I'm not sure that these differences would amount to a size
difference for the jar.
In the case of nested jars which are checked against their containers, we
do need the jars to be bitwise the same even in jar format. For this
reason, the jarProcessor in eclipse does an additional "normalization" step
which is different from the pack200 -repack conditioning.
If you are getting differences after unpack, you may not actually be using
pack200 conditioned/normalized jars, or something went wrong in that
-repack normalization step.
-Andrew
Janet Dmitrovich
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To
Equinox development mailing
list <[email protected]>
10/07/2008 03:58 PM cc
Subject
[equinox-dev] normalized jar
Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list
<[email protected]>
Should the size of the jar ( Normalized and signed jar ) be the same
pre-packand post-unpack ?
Janet Dmitrovich
WPLC Expeditor Software Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
512-838-4912 T/L:678-4912 FAX:512-838-3703
11501 Burnet Road, Austin TX 78758 (Internal ZIP: 9372)
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
<<inline: pic09366.gif>>
<<inline: ecblank.gif>>
<<inline: 21334173.gif>>
_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
