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

[Jiri Vanek]

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

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
>>
>>
>> May I push?
>>
>> J.
> 
> Regards,
> Jacob
>