[ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPJAR-51?page=comments#action_53446 ]
Robert Burrell Donkin commented on MPJAR-51: -------------------------------------------- +1 using major.minor is just what we need for the commons. later versions of the jar specification (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/extensions/versioning.html) mean that we really need the implementation-vendor-id set as well. i wonder whether basising this on the organization url (http://www.apache.org -> org.apache) might be about right. > REDUX: Specification-Version and Implementation-Vendor-Id not being set > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: MPJAR-51 > URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPJAR-51 > Project: maven-jar-plugin > Type: Bug > Reporter: Robert Burrell Donkin > > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPJAR-7?rc=1 commented out code to set the > Specification-Version manifect attribute. There seems to have been quite a > bit of debate about that bug. The result seems to be that the code was > commented out > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/maven/maven-1/plugins/trunk/jar/plugin.jelly?rev=115072&r1=115041&r2=115072&diff_format=h > so that the RC3 could ship and a more permenent solution found later. It's > still there. > Specification-Version should really be set for libraries: IIRC there are some > fancy EJB library loading routines which rely on it. Personally speaking, > I'd be happen to uncomment the commented line. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
