Skip to content
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.

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

Build is too brittle because .target files contain timestamps of external dependencies which change #135

Closed
vorburger opened this issue Sep 18, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@vorburger
Copy link
Member

See #127 and the fix for SpotBugs' com.github.spotbugs.plugin.eclipse.feature.group from 3.1.1.r201712011030-903b7a0 to "3.1.7.r201809130347-03f0119 I just had to do in #113 to get it to build again.

This project's build is just too brittle, because .target files contain timestamps of external dependencies which change over time.

I forgot how to improve this... 😄 This is that business about p2 deps via TP or letting Tycho do this for you, wasn't? If anyone knows how to change that, go for it and raise a PR...

@ArloL
Copy link
Contributor

ArloL commented Sep 18, 2018

If I'm reading this correctly: The problem is not the timestamp. That's just a result of the eclipse build - the version has changed as well. The problem is that most eclipse plugins do not publish old versions of their plugins thus making continuous integration with deterministic versions a pain. And also having specific versions is actually a nice thing since your builds become more reproducible.

@vorburger
Copy link
Member Author

vorburger commented Sep 22, 2018

This sort of has also come up in #149 again (where @victornoel and @erwint wonder why we have both .target and .setup here) and from what (little) I remember, this https://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse_Oomph_Authoring#Generating_PDE_Target_Definition_files_.28.2A.target.29_and_their_use_by_Tycho is how one use the .setup as the "source of truth", and Oomph generate .targets (and updates to it).

https://wiki.eclipse.org/Oomph_Targlets somehow allows an even tighter integration; but I dunno more.

@erwint
Copy link
Member

erwint commented Nov 10, 2018

Is this fixed with #169?

@vorburger
Copy link
Member Author

Is this fixed with #169?

yup!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants