> I'd like to hear others weigh in on this repackaging issue. Is this a
> common practice?
The usual problem I see is that the user wants a single-file
"double-clickable" application packaged as a jar file. So you unpack
the subsidiary jars, usually libraries like Lucene or Simple, and
then build a new jar file which contains all the classes of the
various unpacked jars, with a Makefile line like this:
${JAR} uf $@ `find . -name \*.class`
Since all the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF files wind up in the same place
during unpacking of the various jar files, only the information in the
last one unpacked is preserved, but the user typically builds their
own jar manifest anyway. I agree with you that a careful user might
(and perhaps should) put the right stuff in their jar manifest, but
I'm not sure I want to depend on it.
I've seen this in a number of places, but that may just be my experience.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
