Add a negative requirement on darkest dark 2024.4.0.202412101111 #2177
Conversation
|
FYI, I can see that this works because Oomph's repository explorer can explore the contents of the workspace projects published as IUs by p2's publisher:
|
| # https://github.com/eclipse-packaging/packages/issues/307 | ||
| requires.100.namespace=org.eclipse.equinox.p2.iu | ||
| requires.100.name=com.genuitec.eclipse.theming.core.feature.feature.group | ||
| requires.100.range = [0.0.1,2024.4.0.202412101111] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we know that they don't auto push things with new qualifier? IMO it's best this to become [0.0.1, 2024.4.1).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whatever they do, it must have a higher number to update. Note the upper bound is inclusive. And moreover, note that 2024.4.1) doesn't include 2024.4.0.202412101111 and because we want a negative requirement we must include the thing we want to exclude...
Given the comments here:
eclipse-cdt/cdt#1164 (comment)
Maybe we can hope for the best instead?
Or maybe better safe than sorry?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As we don't have any clue in what version it will be fixed we better should exclude any version unless there is a proven fixed one available...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would exclude everything below 2025.0.0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really think folks are missing the point and are now split hairs. We are excluding the broken version and are assuming that any new version will not be broken because that's what folks have promised.
|
@merks adding this to SWT bundle really seems odd. Isn't this a problem of jface? |
|
The thing they are code weaving badly is org.eclipse.ui.internal.BrandingProperties - within their modifications they are referring to now deleted org.eclipse.jface.resource.FileImageDescriptor So I think there are numerous bundles that this negative req can go on, but I agree that JFace makes sense. But SWT may work too, at least for EPP because we don't really support updating JFace without updating SWT too. |
If only EPP is of a concern it could probably better added there... SWT really has nothing to do with that as the File was deleted from JFace. I really find it ugly to add this to a bundle as we effectively should not maintain a list of bad third party plugins, but if we do so it should at least be on the right place. |
|
So you guys think the right place is the JFace bundle? It's ugly no matter where we put it. 😢 |
|
Here instead: |
Nothing in EPP prevents the Platform from updating. The updated Platform is the problem so this is also a problem for the Eclipse SDK with darkest dark installed. So this is a problem that darkest dark does not work with the latest Platform... |
5 participants
eclipse-packaging/packages#310