I've done the following quick test to compare 1.2.14->1.2.15. After
unpacking both, I compared the contents of the respective jars. One
way to see missing/additional files was this:
unzip -l log4j-1.2.14.jar > /tmp/log4j.1.2.14.txt
..
unzip -l log4j-1.2.15.jar > /tmp/log4j.1.2.15.txt
cat log4j.1.2.14.txt | awk '{print $NF}' | sort > a
cat log4j.1.2.15.txt | awk '{print $NF}' | sort > b
comm -3 a b
This shows all the file entries that are not in both jars. In this
case, there are only new entries in the 1.2.15 distribution:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ comm -3 a b
log4j-1.2.14.jar
log4j-1.2.15.jar
META-INF/maven/
META-INF/maven/log4j/
META-INF/maven/log4j/log4j/
META-INF/maven/log4j/log4j/pom.properties
META-INF/maven/log4j/log4j/pom.xml
NTEventLogAppender.o
org_apache_log4j_nt_NTEventLogAppender.h
org_apache_log4j_Priority.h
org/apache/log4j/xml/UnrecognizedElementHandler.class
Obviously the 2 jar names are different, and the the maven stuff is
expected. The .o and .h files are new, but probably benign. The
new class, IIRC, is expected in 1.2.15.
I thought of doing byte size comparison between the file entries in
the jar, but I'm not sure what that would tell us.
From the above test, the jar looks ok to me.
A Jdiff report would be nice I think, just to compare the binary
compatibility aspects.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
