On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 12:35:57PM +0200, Thomas Girard wrote:
> Barry Hawkins wrote:
> [...]
> >I think you make some excellent points here. In your initial message, I
> >thought
> >you were advocating the dropping of version numbers and not trying to do
> >anything
> >else, which I would consider reckless and unwise. Adopting a solution for
> >languages
> >that have a longer history in Debian with some proven solutions seems like
> >a wise
> >approach to me. So, Debian Java Maintainers, let's hear from you on this!
> >We
> >have to work this topic out if we are going to get a decent Java policy
> >ready at
> >any point in the near future.
>
> How about using the `Specification-Version:' in the Jar Manifest[0] ? As
> described in [1], it would be possible to define within each Jar file
> wich specification version is provided by a Jar file. I think this
> addresses the problem discussed here.
>
> But that would be a burden on packagers, since AFAIK not many Java
> developpers use this field...
[...]
Thomas,
Thanks for weighing in! My experience would concur with your observation;
few of the F/OSS Java projects I have worked with do a consistent job of using
the manifest correctly.
--
Barry Hawkins
All Things Computed
site: www.alltc.com
weblog: www.yepthatsme.com
Registered Linux User #368650
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature