On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 20:32 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 12/12/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is the manifest missing a Specification-Version?
>
> Yes, as will be all of the maven-built jars, at least with the current
> version of the maven jar pluglin. Interestingly, we find this in the
> plugin source:
>
> <!--
> <ant:attribute name="Specification-Version"
> value="${pom.currentVersion}"/>
> -->
> <ant:attribute name="Implementation-Title" value="${pom.package}"/>
> <ant:attribute name="Implementation-Vendor"
> value="${pom.organization.name}"/>
> <ant:attribute name="Implementation-Version"
> value="${pom.currentVersion}"/>
> >
> Looks like it used to be there, but was removed for some reason.
seems to be an old issue: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPJAR-7?rc=1
but one that's fallen under the radar. i've raised
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPJAR-51. please add suitable comments.
> If
> you or others feel strongly that this should be included (I assume
> with ${pom.currentVersion}" as the value), I can raise this on the
> maven list and insert the line into the [math] jars using
> manifestMods.txt.
i don't feel strongly enough to -1. not having a specification version
will (i think) break the extension mechanism but that's very rarely
used.
> > BTW i've just discovered that there's a Implementation-Vendor-Id in the
> > (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/jar/jar.html#Manifest%
> > 20Specification). seems like a bit of a waste of space: what vendor
> > should us a name that isn't unique?
> >
> Yes, seems silly. It is unclear to me which, if any, of the manifest
> attributes in the spec are mandatory. Does anyone know?
the specification doesn't seem very clear on this point but i think that
nearly everything is technically optional but some stuff won't work
unless certain attributes are present.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
