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

[Jacob Wisor]

"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. :)

> +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
> 
> 
> May I push?
> 
> J.

Regards,
Jacob