[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12502040
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-908:
--------------------------------------
> * manifest file in any of gdata's jars/war (it doesn't use the
> contrib-build.xml either)
> * should luci's "Class-Path" refer to the full name of the lucene core jar?
I would like to ask the contrib owners to take care of these issues.
> * spec version must match "digit+{.digit+}*" ... this is true for our
> official releases,
> but broken in our nightlies.
I will leave this for now as this patch doesn't change the spec version.
> * need to svn remove the existing luci MANIFEST file
> * manifest file in demo war file
Will take care...
> MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations)
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-908
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Build
> Reporter: Michael Busch
> Assignee: Michael Busch
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 2.2
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-908.patch
>
>
> there are several problems with the MANIFEST.MF file used in the core jar,
> and some inconsistencies in th luci jar:
> Lucli's build.xml has an own "jar" target and does not use the jar target
> from common-build.xml. The result
> is that the MANIFEST.MF file is not consistent and the META-INF dir does not
> contain LICENSE.TXT and NOTICE.TXT.
> Is there a reason why lucli behaves different in this regard? If not I think
> we should fix this.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
