Uncompressed simple artifact repositories should not be the norm. It happens that some exists because people have not been careful with what they produce. I do believe that the default in the publisher is to create compressed simple repositories, but it worth making sure that this still the case.
As for composite repositories (to answer to Hugues), these are typically small (just reference to others) and are indeed easier to deal with in xml format. On 2010-11-17, at 3:49 PM, Dean Roberts wrote: > I wonder if this is an issue of just needing better PDE defaults .... and who > would make that change? > > [email protected] > > > > > Paul Webster <[email protected]> > Sent by: [email protected] > 11/17/2010 01:22 PM > Please respond to > P2 developer discussions <[email protected]> > > To > P2 developer discussions <[email protected]> > cc > Subject > Re: [p2-dev] Use of uncompressed metadata repositories > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Dean Roberts <[email protected]> > wrote: > > So does anybody have an opinion on how widely used uncompressed repositories > are? > > > I can't comment on other projects, but we took the defaults for PDE build in > e4 and it looks like we get a content.xml and artifacts.xml, instead of the > jar. > > PW > > -- > Paul Webster > Hi floor. Make me a sammich! - > GIR_______________________________________________ > p2-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev > > _______________________________________________ > p2-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
