Thankfully the borked jar does not appear to be in the public repo... only
in sun's maven 1 repo

2008/9/30 Mykel Alvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I think you're right (that it's not the same issue), but is that in the
> public repo anywhere (i.e. repo1.maven.org/maven2) ?  If so, do you know
> the
> signature of it?
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:53, Stephen Connolly <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I know there's a borked javaee.jar in the sub maven repository... it's
> > completely useless and is just a stub for compiling... no running unit
> > tests
> > with it as they will all fail to class-load.
> >
> > However, I don't think that this is the broked jar you have
> >
> > 2008/9/30 Mykel Alvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > I'm having an issue with some things I got from Sun and I believe it
> > might
> > > have been encountered by people here.
> > > I downloaded the Linux JavaEE SDK from [1] .  I did this in order to
> have
> > > javaee.jar available as an internal dependency.
> > > Upon examination of this jar, I noticed a second MANIFEST.MF in the
> root
> > of
> > > the jar (!) that references jxr and jax rpc elements.
> > >
> > > This issue concerns me in a couple of ways.  First, it makes me think
> > that
> > > Java's release process isn't so hot.  Then I start to wonder if my
> belief
> > > that javaee.jar has no dependencies is accurate.  When I went looking
> for
> > a
> > > place to ask about this, I discovered that there doesn't appear to be a
> > > good
> > > one.
> > >
> > > Has anyone else seen this or do I have some sort of three-headed alien
> > baby
> > > version of javaee.jar?
> > > Is there a place to report this that I didn't find?
> > > I noted that another version, apparently from the windows install,
> > doesn't
> > > seem to have this (based on information from a colleague).  Can someone
> > > verify that for me?
> > >
> > > Thanks for any insights,
> > > Mykel
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] http://java.sun.com/javaee/downloads/index.jsp  ->
> > > java_ee_sdk-5_05-linux-nojdk-ml.bin
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to