commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Cohen <sco...@javactivity.org>
Subject Re: [net] release question
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:46:44 GMT
Hmm, thanks, Robert.

The Sun docs' example makes a better case for their way of doing it than the 
Apache example does.  In particular "Implementation-Version" boils down to 
basically a build number which is not clearly shown in the Apache example.  
Of course we don't use these in Commons-net and it would be hard in an open 
source project where we lack a "build machine", but at least you see the 
point of having the key there.

You've caught me out.  I really did try to do it the Apache way but I couldn't 
figure out how to make Maven give me an Implementation-Title.

I created a manifest file, and put the Implementation-Title key-value pair 
there, then I defined the property maven.jar.manifest in project.properties 
to point at the location of this file.  Maven docs indicated that this would 
cause Maven to merge the default manifest with this one, but when I was done, 
the manifest created was no different.  It was then that I noticed the 
package key containing the same data and got lazy and decided that that was 
good enough.

But if you or someone else can point me at the correct way of making Maven do 
the right thing, I'll be happy to follow.

On Thursday 22 January 2004 4:58 am, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2004, at 06:07, Steve Cohen wrote:
> > I see.
> >
> > After looking further into this matter, I begin to doubt the
> > correctness of
> > the http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/prepare.html
> > instructions.
>
> hi steve
>
> IIRC this point has been talked about at a little length in the past. i
> see to remember something about an ant issue (or at least a good point
> raised by some of the ant team) which is why the documented standard
> was adopted. i'd recommend checking the list archive and reading the
> whole thread.
>
> if circumstances have changed and the maven manifest is now more
> correct than the standard commons one, then probably the documentation
> should be changed. if (on the other hand) it turns out that maven is
> less correct then it's better to go with the agreed standard.
>
> > They recommend this line in the manifest
> >
> > Implementation-Title: "org.apache.commons.foo"
> >
> > The existing maven system produces
> > Package: "org.apache.commons.net"
> >
> > To me, "Package" is a more descriptive key than "Implementation-Title"
> > for
> > this value anyway.
> >
> > I will stick with what Maven does.
>
> commons usually uses the sun standards. "Implementation-Title" seems to
> be the sun-favoured name
> (http://java.sun.com/developer/Books/javaprogramming/JAR/basics/
> manifest.html, for example). there doesn't really seem to be any reason
> why duplicate values should not occur in the manifest and so there
> really isn't any reason why you couldn't list both.
>
> - robert
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message