I tried it. It creates an invalid manifest file
On 5/27/07, Ed Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's nice. I will try the version tomorrow.
By the way, are you aware that the next version of proguard will have it's
own preverifier. Maybe that will effect eclipseme?
On 5/27/07, Craig Setera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It should... I'm going to put out another test version later
> today/tonight and I've actually tested mpowermplayer with that version
> as well as adding support for me4se and microemulator.
>
> Ed Welch wrote:
> > Does it now work with Mpowerplayer?
> >
> > On 5/26/07, *Craig Setera* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> wrote:
> >
> > Everyone,
> >
> > I've just placed a new test version of EclipseME (1.6.8.a) at
> > http://eclipseme.org/testversions . I would appreciate any
> feedback
> > people could give me on this new functionality as I continue
> > development
> > on the next release. This build should fix the build.xml export
> > functionality and now Motorola SDK 6.4 support should now be
> working.
> > (Note: I couldn't get Moto SDK 6.4 to run on Windows Vista, but it
> was
> > working in a WinXP Virtual PC image)
> >
> > The biggest change in this new version is in the automatic builder
>
> > functionality. As of this version, the standard builder will
> always
> > keep the JAR and JAD file up to date. In addition, all launching
> > is now
> > done using the automatically deployed JAR/JAD files. This should
> > better
> > match reality for deployment and provide a better test that the
> > packaged
> > functionality will work correctly.
> >
> > I need lots of feedback on whether this new functionality is
> working
> > correctly... picking up all changes, launching correctly, etc. I
> > would
> > also like to get people's thoughts on a few related issues:
> >
> > 1) Should the automated build increment the version number
> > automatically? Right now it will only bump the version number
> > when the
> > package is explicitly built using the menu item. I think this is
> > correct, as I don't expect the version number should increment
> every
> > time a file is saved.
> >
> > 2) Should the ability to implicitly obfuscate be supported on
> > save? It
> > currently does not do this, and my gut tells me that that is the
> > correct
> > answer. For one thing, obfuscation is expensive and it doesn't
> seem
> > that it should be done on every file save.
> >
> > 3) What other things are missing with this functionality?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Craig
> >
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
> > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
> > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
> > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Eclipseme-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto: [email protected]>
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclipseme-users
> > < https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclipseme-users>
> >
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
> _______________________________________________
> Eclipseme-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclipseme-users
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Eclipseme-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclipseme-users
