[icedtea-web][rfc] More complete NetX jar file manifest

Jiri Vanek jvanek at redhat.com
Thu Jun 6 06:51:06 PDT 2013

On 06/06/2013 03:45 PM, Jacob Wisor wrote:
> "Jiri Vanek"<jvanek at xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/21/2013 01:30 AM, Jacob Wisor wrote:
>>> "Jiri Vanek"<jvanek at xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 05/03/2013 03:33 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>>> On 05/02/2013 07:03 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/02/2013 12:57 PM, Jacob Wisor wrote:
>>>>>>> "Omair Majid"<omajid at xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/02/2013 11:15 AM, Jacob Wisor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Jacob Wisor"<gitne at xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to propose to make the jar file manifest more
>>>>>>>>>>> complete, though I am not sure about the "Implementation-Vendor"
>>>>>>>>>>> attribute's (key) value.
>>>>>>>> I would use "IcedTea"
>>>>>>>>> +Implementation-URL: http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea-Web
>>>>>>>> Please use @PACKAGE_URL@ here, instead of duplicating the URL.
>>>>>>> Setting IcedTea as vendor and then setting "Implementation-URL" to
>>>>>>> @PACKAGE_URL@ does not compute. How about setting
>>>>>>> "Implementation-Vendor" to @VENDOR@ (or @PACKAGE_VENDOR@?) and adding
>>>>>>> it to the build script, hence "IcedTea" being the default for
>>>>>>> @VENDOR@ and "http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea-Web" the
>>>>>>> default for @PACKAGE_URL@?
>>>>>> That sounds fine to me. I went with @PACKAGE_URL@ since it's already
>>>>>> defined, and used in only a few places, whereas the string IcedTea is
>>>>>> probably present in every file already (along the lines of "This file is
>>>>>> part of IcedTea").
>>>>>> I would like to hear what others think about "IcedTea" as the vendor,
>>>>>> before we decide to use it.
>>>>> I'm for it. We are also using it in *all* jnlp testcases (<vendor>IcedTea</vendor>) so it would be
>>>>> nicely consistent.
>>>>> Thank you for taking this review!
>>>>> J.
>>>> diff -r 3dd0ae4efe78 netx.manifest.in
>>>> --- a/netx.manifest.in	Mon May 20 15:13:32 2013 +0200
>>>> +++ b/netx.manifest.in	Mon May 20 15:57:59 2013 +0200
>>>> @@ -1,2 +1,8 @@
>>>>    Implementation-Title: @PACKAGE_NAME@
>>>>    Implementation-Version: @FULL_VERSION@
>>>> +Implementation-URL: @PACKAGE_URL@
>>>> +Implementation-Vendor: IcedTea
>>> What about the vendor? This acutally should be a distro's or publisher's name. It is the same as with the title and url. In my understanding only an unmodified release may/should bear the label IcedTea as vendor, hence especially major or commercial distros should adjust this key for thier release, even more, should they modify an IcedTea release before releasing a binary.
>>> But, this is only my interpretation of the jar manifest file specification, and maybe I am taking this too seriously. :)
>> We are forwarding the distribution via configure - eg
>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/icedtea-web.git/tree/icedtea-web.spec#n103
> Sorry for responding so late, but I have been cut off the inet lately. What is the status on this?


It is waiting for your allow. to be pushed by me, or by yourself

>> My interpretation of Implementation-Vendor is the person/organisation  who actually implemented the
>> specification.
>> Thanx for hints!
>>>> +Specification-Title: JSR56: Java Network Launching Protocol and API
>>>> +Specification-URL: http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/mrel/jsr056
>>>> +Specification-Vendor: Java Community Process
>>>> +Specification-Version: 6.0

More information about the distro-pkg-dev mailing list