On Dec 19, 2007, at 13:40, Mark Brouwer wrote:
browser-dl.jar:
[jar] Building jar: /home/continuum/data/working-directory/106/
lib-dl/browser-dl.jar
[java] An I/O error occured: illegal preferred list header: #/*
[java] java.io.IOException: illegal preferred list header: #/*
[java] at
com
.sun.jini.tool.PreferredListGen.createGraph(PreferredListGen.java:
831)
[java] at
com.sun.jini.tool.PreferredListGen.loadJar(PreferredListGen.java:728)
[java] at
com.sun.jini.tool.PreferredListGen.loadJars(PreferredListGen.java:
687)
[java] at
com.sun.jini.tool.PreferredListGen.compute(PreferredListGen.java:
1110)
[java] at
com.sun.jini.tool.PreferredListGen.main(PreferredListGen.java:1375)
Hi Frank,
I think PreferredListGen is right based on the current specification
to
consider the modified PREFERRED.LIST files as illegal.
Moving the license header after the first line that contains
'PreferredResources-Version: 1.x' should fix this problem. One can
argue
whether it is handy the spec demands the first line to contain this
entry, but I'm afraid it is too late for that now. IIRC it was me who
asked for allowing comments in PREFERRED.LIST, so blame it on me you
attempted it ;-)
Finger pointing is not necessary. I suspect I was originally informed
of this detail, but just didn't register it in my mind.
Given the fact the PREFERRED.LIST is part of the download JAR file I
also can't say I'm particularly happy with it given the fact that it
adds up a few bytes for download JAR file size, even while
compressed it is only a few hundred bytes.
So, is this something others feel strongly about? We could leave the
preferred list files without license headers to keep the size down to
a minimum, which will add a few lines to the RAT output, or add the
license headers to appease RAT but add 432 bytes (ave) to each of
three jars. Opinions?
Frank
