On 3/12/07, Alin Dreghiciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Take a look at an example: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-240
I had to add a new property: osgiVersion because pakage version does not
always conforms to osgi format. As in the example above the package
was 2.2but becasue of the pom version and snapshot the version will be
2.2.0001-SNAPSHOT which is invalid. so the osgi version reuses the package
version and adds .0
So, I think I'm caught up on these threads OK. I merged the above
latest round of thinking on the versioning scheme with the earlier
thread regarding the shortName. The gist of it is that with:
<properties>
<shortName>commons-attributes-api</shortName>
<pkgVersion>2.2</pkgVersion>
<pomVersion>0001</pomVersion>
<osgiVersion>${pkgVersion}.0</osgiVersion>
</properties>
...
<groupId>org.apache.felix.commons</groupId>
<artifactId>${pom.groupId}.${shortName}</artifactId>
<version>${osgiVersion}-${pomVersion}-SNAPSHOT</version>
... you get an artifact named:
org.apache.felix.commons.commons-attributes-api-2.2.0-0001-SNAPSHOT.jar
On the bright side, with the "SNAPSHOT" and the fact that
"commons-attributes-api" is about as long as they come to begin with,
I think this is a worst case scenario in terms of length.
The manifest looked good, including the package versioning.
Is that what we want? Did I get that right?
Enrique
