On 02/22/2013 05:35 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > On 02/22/2013 05:09 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >> On 02/20/2013 09:48 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> Thomas Neidhart wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/20/2013 09:33 PM, Oliver Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 20.02.2013 16:42, schrieb t...@apache.org: >>>>>> Author: tn >>>>>> Date: Wed Feb 20 15:42:09 2013 >>>>>> New Revision: 1448251 >>>>>> >>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1448251 >>>>>> Log: >>>>>> Update version info >>>>>> >>>>>> Modified: >>>>>> commons/proper/logging/trunk/src/conf/MANIFEST.MF >>>>>> >>>>>> Modified: commons/proper/logging/trunk/src/conf/MANIFEST.MF >>>>>> URL: >>>>>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/logging/trunk/src/conf/MANIFEST.MF?rev=1448251&r1=1448250&r2=1448251&view=diff >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> ============================================================================== >>>>>> >>>>>> --- commons/proper/logging/trunk/src/conf/MANIFEST.MF (original) >>>>>> +++ commons/proper/logging/trunk/src/conf/MANIFEST.MF Wed Feb 20 >>>>>> 15:42:09 2013 >>>>>> @@ -5,4 +5,4 @@ Specification-Version: 1.0 >>>>>> Implementation-Title: Commons Logging >>>>>> Implementation-Vendor-Id: org.apache >>>>>> Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation >>>>>> -Implementation-Version: 1.1.1 >>>>>> +Implementation-Version: 1.1.2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Just wondering whether this is necessary. Doesn't the maven build >>>>> automatically generate a fully configured MANIFEST including OSGi meta >>>>> data? >>> >>> wondered about exactly the same. >>> >>>> >>>> yes, but somehow the ant build script is still in use (e.g. for gump) >>>> and both ant & maven refer to this hard-coded manifest. >>> >>> If Gump uses Ant here, this is just for historical reasons. Gump can use >>> Maven since quite some time now. >> >> Ok, when I try to remove the hard-coded manifest, the >> maven-bundle-plugin steps in and automatically creates one. >> >> This is fine, but the Import-Package contains all (optional) >> dependencies which are not marked like that. >> >> I am not so familiar with these things, does somebody know how to >> specify this? >> >> Or would this not work at all, as already outlined in LOGGING-124? > > After some research, I started with this: > > <plugin> > <groupId>org.apache.felix</groupId> > <artifactId>maven-bundle-plugin</artifactId> > <inherited>true</inherited> > <configuration> > <instructions> > <Import-Package>*;resolution:=optional</Import-Package> > <DynamicImport-Package>*</DynamicImport-Package> > </instructions> > </configuration> > </plugin> > > All dependencies are optional, so this should be fine. > I added the DynamicImport but this may be to generic, and has to be > limited to the actual packages that are loaded dynamically by the > discovery process. > > Can anybody provide me with a simple test bundle to see if logging would > work when loaded in e.g. apache felix?
Well, I have not yet a clue about osgi, and I see that felix has re-bundled commons-logging in a total different way: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/commons/commons-logging/pom.xml Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
