[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-908) MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12502156 ] Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-908: -- As always these are very good recommendations Hoss! I think I will commit my patch for 2.2, because it works fine. But I will leave this issue open (just clear the Fix version) to keep in mind that we want to make these improvements. > MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations) > -- > > Key: LUCENE-908 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Build >Reporter: Michael Busch >Assignee: Michael Busch >Priority: Trivial > Fix For: 2.2 > > Attachments: lucene-908.patch, LUCENE-908.patch > > > there are several problems with the MANIFEST.MF file used in the core jar, > and some inconsistencies in th luci jar: > Lucli's build.xml has an own "jar" target and does not use the jar target > from common-build.xml. The result > is that the MANIFEST.MF file is not consistent and the META-INF dir does not > contain LICENSE.TXT and NOTICE.TXT. > Is there a reason why lucli behaves different in this regard? If not I think > we should fix this. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-908) MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12502104 ] Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-908: - A couple of random thoughts... 1) macro's can take multiple optional named tags to embed in their bodies ... so instead of declaring a refid for what to include in the metinf, callers of the macro could put call directly in the call to 2) one way to reduce some redundancy in the build files (between jar-core, jar-demo, and war-demo) might be to use the task instead of the sub element of the task ... there are a few subtle differences but the main key is that the taks let's you build up a file which you can then refer to by name from the task ... we could have a single macro with all of the common attributes in it and then it could be called from the various jar/war targets just before building the actual jar using attributes and tags to customize things that need to be different. ...neither of these are crucial, they're just things you might want to consider to keep the build files smaller (and arguably simpler) > MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations) > -- > > Key: LUCENE-908 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Build >Reporter: Michael Busch >Assignee: Michael Busch >Priority: Trivial > Fix For: 2.2 > > Attachments: lucene-908.patch, LUCENE-908.patch > > > there are several problems with the MANIFEST.MF file used in the core jar, > and some inconsistencies in th luci jar: > Lucli's build.xml has an own "jar" target and does not use the jar target > from common-build.xml. The result > is that the MANIFEST.MF file is not consistent and the META-INF dir does not > contain LICENSE.TXT and NOTICE.TXT. > Is there a reason why lucli behaves different in this regard? If not I think > we should fix this. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-908) MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations)
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12502040
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-908:
--
> * manifest file in any of gdata's jars/war (it doesn't use the
> contrib-build.xml either)
> * should luci's "Class-Path" refer to the full name of the lucene core jar?
I would like to ask the contrib owners to take care of these issues.
> * spec version must match "digit+{.digit+}*" ... this is true for our
> official releases,
> but broken in our nightlies.
I will leave this for now as this patch doesn't change the spec version.
> * need to svn remove the existing luci MANIFEST file
> * manifest file in demo war file
Will take care...
> MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations)
> --
>
> Key: LUCENE-908
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Build
>Reporter: Michael Busch
>Assignee: Michael Busch
>Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 2.2
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-908.patch
>
>
> there are several problems with the MANIFEST.MF file used in the core jar,
> and some inconsistencies in th luci jar:
> Lucli's build.xml has an own "jar" target and does not use the jar target
> from common-build.xml. The result
> is that the MANIFEST.MF file is not consistent and the META-INF dir does not
> contain LICENSE.TXT and NOTICE.TXT.
> Is there a reason why lucli behaves different in this regard? If not I think
> we should fix this.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-908) MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12501798 ] Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-908: -- > Michael i'm hoping you can take the ball and run with it, Thanks for the pass, Hoss, I'm already running... > MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations) > -- > > Key: LUCENE-908 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Build >Reporter: Michael Busch >Assignee: Michael Busch >Priority: Trivial > Fix For: 2.2 > > Attachments: LUCENE-908.patch > > > there are several problems with the MANIFEST.MF file used in the core jar, > and some inconsistencies in th luci jar: > Lucli's build.xml has an own "jar" target and does not use the jar target > from common-build.xml. The result > is that the MANIFEST.MF file is not consistent and the META-INF dir does not > contain LICENSE.TXT and NOTICE.TXT. > Is there a reason why lucli behaves different in this regard? If not I think > we should fix this. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-908) MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12501713 ] Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-908: -- Hi Hoss, I think this makes sense. It would be great if you could provide a patch here? > MANIFEST.MF cleanup (main jar and luci customizations) > -- > > Key: LUCENE-908 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-908 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Build >Reporter: Michael Busch >Assignee: Michael Busch >Priority: Trivial > Fix For: 2.2 > > > there are several problems with the MANIFEST.MF file used in the core jar, > and some inconsistencies in th luci jar: > Lucli's build.xml has an own "jar" target and does not use the jar target > from common-build.xml. The result > is that the MANIFEST.MF file is not consistent and the META-INF dir does not > contain LICENSE.TXT and NOTICE.TXT. > Is there a reason why lucli behaves different in this regard? If not I think > we should fix this. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
