Skip to content

Add a negative requirement on darkest dark 2024.4.0.202412101111 #2177

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Add a negative requirement on darkest dark 2024.4.0.202412101111 #2177

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions bundles/org.eclipse.swt/META-INF/p2.inf
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -44,3 +44,11 @@ requires.9.namespace = org.eclipse.equinox.p2.iu
requires.9.name = org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.riscv64
requires.9.range = [$version$,$version$]
requires.9.filter = (&(osgi.os=linux)(osgi.ws=gtk)(osgi.arch=riscv64)(!(org.eclipse.swt.buildtime=true)))

# Ensure that 4.36 is not installed with the 0.0.1,2024.4.0.202412101111 version of darkest dark devstyle.
# 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]
Copy link
Member

@akurtakov akurtakov May 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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).

Copy link
Contributor Author

@merks merks May 22, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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?

Copy link
Contributor

@laeubi laeubi May 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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...

Copy link
Member

@iloveeclipse iloveeclipse May 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would exclude everything below 2025.0.0.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@merks merks May 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

requires.100.min = 0
requires.100.max = 0
Loading