> -----Original Message----- > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:11 AM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Codec 1.4 based on RC2 > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Mat Booth<fed...@matbooth.co.uk> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Julius Davies [mailto:juliusdav...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:47 PM > >> To: Commons Developers List > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Codec 1.4 based on RC2 > >> > >> Probably the Maven2 generated Jar is okay in this department? > >> > >> Here's the MANIFEST.MF created by Maven2 (I'm using trunk to create the > >> jar): > >> > > > > Snip... > > > >> > >> Here's the MANIFEST.MF created by ant: > >> > > > > Snip... > > > >> > >> I don't think missing OSGI headers in the Ant generated jar is a big > deal. > >> > >> +1 for RC2 from me. > >> > >> > >> yours, > >> > >> Julius > >> > > > > > > I for one would appreciate OSGI information in the Ant generated jar, > > Why?
It would be nice if no matter how you built the software, you would get the same deliverables, in this case, one jar file. If the manifest is different, it makes me wonder what else is different between the two builds. Gary > > Niall > > > if it's not too much trouble to make the jars consistent no matter how > > you generate them. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > -- > > Mat Booth > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
