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

[Jacob Wisor]

"Jiri Vanek"<jvanek at xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
> 
> Np!
> 
> 
> It is waiting for your allow. to be pushed by me, or by yourself

Okay then, push please. I am currently missing any really usable access, so there is not much for me that I can do.
 
> J.
> >   
> >> 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
> 
>