On 2/10/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 2/10/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK" and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes > > to > > > > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown > > attributes > > > > are ignored) to show the setting of maven's "maven.compile.source" > > and > > > > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with. > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev > > > > > > > > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version > > used > > > > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the > > commons > > > > components to do the same. > > > > > > Sounds like a good idea. Hopefully everyone follows the spec and > > > doesn't have a tizzy when things turn up in the manifest :) > > > > > > So the term 'Compile-Source-JDK' is just something you've made up > > > right? > > > > Yes. > > > > > There's no standard out there? > > > > Don't know of any. > > > The only convention I have seen is for "non-standard" headers to be prefixed > with "X-" to emphasize the fact that they are made-up things (and also to > avoid any possibility of a clash with a later standardized name). So, > perhaps using "X-Compile-Source-JDK" an "X-Compile-Target-JDK" might be > better.
OK thanks for the tip. I'll leave it a while longer to see if anyone else raises any issues, otherwise I'll do as you suggest. Niall > Niall > > > > > Hen > > > Craig > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
