DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37909>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37909 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-12-15 20:52 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > actually, we need this (in my company) to specify dependencies in to oro in > our > apps with the Extension-List mechanism. For instance Tomcat does not consider > that a dependency is resolved if the "extension" we depend on does not > specify > this entry. Thanks. I don't think most of us at Jakarta were aware that this was becoming an issue. We've updated the packaging instructions at http://jakarta.apache.org/site/packageversioning.html to include Implementaton-Vendor-Id. It would seem we should have been doing this since J2SE 1.3. The change I made to oro is in the main trunk. If you haven't already manually fixed the manifest for your purposes, you can either build the latest version of the source from: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/oro/trunk/ or rebuild the 2.0.8 source using the current: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/oro/trunk/build.properties http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/oro/trunk/build.xml I don't think the change is significant enough to merit a 2.0.9 release (it would be 2.0.8 with just build.properties and build.xml changed). But if there is some reason why it's necessary, I can call for a release vote. Further discussion should happen on the oro-dev mailing list (no use cluttering this issue report). -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
