[all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Niall Pemberton-2
I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes to
the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown attributes
are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source" and
"maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.

http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev

I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version used
to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the commons
components to do the same.

Niall



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Henri Yandell
On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes to
> the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown attributes
> are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source" and
> "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
>
> I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version used
> to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the commons
> components to do the same.

Sounds like a good idea. Hopefully everyone follows the spec and
doesn't have a tizzy when things turn up in the manifest :)

So the term 'Compile-Source-JDK' is just something you've made up
right? There's no standard out there?

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Niall Pemberton
On 2/10/06, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes to
> > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown attributes
> > are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source" and
> > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
> >
> > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version used
> > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the commons
> > components to do the same.
>
> Sounds like a good idea. Hopefully everyone follows the spec and
> doesn't have a tizzy when things turn up in the manifest :)
>
> So the term 'Compile-Source-JDK' is just something you've made up
> right?

Yes.

> There's no standard out there?

Don't know of any.

Niall

> Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

craigmcc
On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 2/10/06, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes
> to
> > > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown
> attributes
> > > are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source"
> and
> > > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
> > >
> > > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
> > >
> > > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version
> used
> > > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the
> commons
> > > components to do the same.
> >
> > Sounds like a good idea. Hopefully everyone follows the spec and
> > doesn't have a tizzy when things turn up in the manifest :)
> >
> > So the term 'Compile-Source-JDK' is just something you've made up
> > right?
>
> Yes.
>
> > There's no standard out there?
>
> Don't know of any.


The only convention I have seen is for "non-standard" headers to be prefixed
with "X-" to emphasize the fact that they are made-up things (and also to
avoid any possibility of a clash with a later standardized name).  So,
perhaps using "X-Compile-Source-JDK" an "X-Compile-Target-JDK" might be
better.

Niall
>
> > Hen


Craig

---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Niall Pemberton
On 2/10/06, Craig McClanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/10/06, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes
> > to
> > > > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown
> > attributes
> > > > are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source"
> > and
> > > > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
> > > >
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
> > > >
> > > > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version
> > used
> > > > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the
> > commons
> > > > components to do the same.
> > >
> > > Sounds like a good idea. Hopefully everyone follows the spec and
> > > doesn't have a tizzy when things turn up in the manifest :)
> > >
> > > So the term 'Compile-Source-JDK' is just something you've made up
> > > right?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > There's no standard out there?
> >
> > Don't know of any.
>
>
> The only convention I have seen is for "non-standard" headers to be prefixed
> with "X-" to emphasize the fact that they are made-up things (and also to
> avoid any possibility of a clash with a later standardized name).  So,
> perhaps using "X-Compile-Source-JDK" an "X-Compile-Target-JDK" might be
> better.

OK thanks for the tip. I'll leave it a while longer to see if anyone
else raises any issues, otherwise I'll do as you suggest.

Niall

> Niall
> >
> > > Hen
>
>
> Craig
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

robert burrell donkin
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 23:25 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote:

> On 2/10/06, Craig McClanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/10/06, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes
> > > to
> > > > > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown
> > > attributes
> > > > > are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source"
> > > and
> > > > > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
> > > > >
> > > > > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version
> > > used
> > > > > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the
> > > commons
> > > > > components to do the same.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like a good idea. Hopefully everyone follows the spec and
> > > > doesn't have a tizzy when things turn up in the manifest :)
> > > >
> > > > So the term 'Compile-Source-JDK' is just something you've made up
> > > > right?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > There's no standard out there?
> > >
> > > Don't know of any.
> >
> >
> > The only convention I have seen is for "non-standard" headers to be prefixed
> > with "X-" to emphasize the fact that they are made-up things (and also to
> > avoid any possibility of a clash with a later standardized name).  So,
> > perhaps using "X-Compile-Source-JDK" an "X-Compile-Target-JDK" might be
> > better.
>
> OK thanks for the tip. I'll leave it a while longer to see if anyone
> else raises any issues, otherwise I'll do as you suggest.

sounds like a good idea :)

any chance of adding a few words to the release documentation?

- robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by Niall Pemberton-2
OK I've done this for active components in "proper" and "sandbox".
Couldn't test email and modler because their builds failed.

Also exec and openpgp only have maven2 build files. I downloaded
maven2 and got as far as working out how to add manifest entries - but
I couldn't work out how to refernece the compile plugin configuration
- so I've left the JDK bits commented out in the sandbox's pom.xml:

   http://tinyurl.com/737qc

Any maven2 experts feel free to jump in :-)

I also added a bit to the release docs - as per Robert's suggestion.

Niall

On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes to
> the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown attributes
> are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source" and
> "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
>
> I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version used
> to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the commons
> components to do the same.
>
> Niall

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

craigmcc
On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> OK I've done this for active components in "proper" and "sandbox".
> Couldn't test email and modler because their builds failed.


You only changed things for the Maven builds, right?  The nightlies (which
use Ant) won't reflect this.  (For the record, the Commons nightlies are
compiled with JDK 1.4.2).

Craig

Also exec and openpgp only have maven2 build files. I downloaded

> maven2 and got as far as working out how to add manifest entries - but
> I couldn't work out how to refernece the compile plugin configuration
> - so I've left the JDK bits commented out in the sandbox's pom.xml:
>
>    http://tinyurl.com/737qc
>
> Any maven2 experts feel free to jump in :-)
>
> I also added a bit to the release docs - as per Robert's suggestion.
>
> Niall
>
> On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes
> to
> > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown
> attributes
> > are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source" and
> > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
> >
> > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version
> used
> > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the
> commons
> > components to do the same.
> >
> > Niall
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Niall Pemberton
On 2/14/06, Craig McClanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > OK I've done this for active components in "proper" and "sandbox".
> > Couldn't test email and modler because their builds failed.
>
>
> You only changed things for the Maven builds, right?  The nightlies (which
> use Ant) won't reflect this.  (For the record, the Commons nightlies are
> compiled with JDK 1.4.2).

Yes. I assume that most components are using maven for creating
releases. Is it an issue that they don't - or would there be an issue
if they did?

Niall

> Craig
>
> Also exec and openpgp only have maven2 build files. I downloaded
> > maven2 and got as far as working out how to add manifest entries - but
> > I couldn't work out how to refernece the compile plugin configuration
> > - so I've left the JDK bits commented out in the sandbox's pom.xml:
> >
> >    http://tinyurl.com/737qc
> >
> > Any maven2 experts feel free to jump in :-)
> >
> > I also added a bit to the release docs - as per Robert's suggestion.
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes
> > to
> > > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown
> > attributes
> > > are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source" and
> > > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
> > >
> > > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
> > >
> > > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version
> > used
> > > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the
> > commons
> > > components to do the same.
> > >
> > > Niall
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by robert burrell donkin
On 2/12/06, robert burrell donkin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> sounds like a good idea :)
>
> any chance of adding a few words to the release documentation?

I added three references to it

Two of them are here (the other earlier in the "Check Class File
Format" section):

http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/prepare.html#checkjarmanifest
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/prepare.html#classfileformat

Niall

> - robert
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

craigmcc
In reply to this post by Niall Pemberton
On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 2/14/06, Craig McClanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK I've done this for active components in "proper" and "sandbox".
> > > Couldn't test email and modler because their builds failed.
> >
> >
> > You only changed things for the Maven builds, right?  The nightlies
> (which
> > use Ant) won't reflect this.  (For the record, the Commons nightlies are
> > compiled with JDK 1.4.2).
>
> Yes. I assume that most components are using maven for creating
> releases. Is it an issue that they don't - or would there be an issue
> if they did?


It would be an issue if they did *not* use Maven ... the Ant build does not
add these two attributes to the manifest.  I suspect you are correct,
though, about most people using Maven for release builds ... but we should
probably say something to that effect in the packaging instructions.

Craig


Niall

>
> > Craig
> >
> > Also exec and openpgp only have maven2 build files. I downloaded
> > > maven2 and got as far as working out how to add manifest entries - but
> > > I couldn't work out how to refernece the compile plugin configuration
> > > - so I've left the JDK bits commented out in the sandbox's pom.xml:
> > >
> > >    http://tinyurl.com/737qc
> > >
> > > Any maven2 experts feel free to jump in :-)
> > >
> > > I also added a bit to the release docs - as per Robert's suggestion.
> > >
> > > Niall
> > >
> > > On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK"
> attributes
> > > to
> > > > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown
> > > attributes
> > > > are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source"
> and
> > > > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
> > > >
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
> > > >
> > > > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK
> version
> > > used
> > > > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the
> > > commons
> > > > components to do the same.
> > > >
> > > > Niall
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Niall Pemberton
On 2/14/06, Craig McClanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/14/06, Craig McClanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK I've done this for active components in "proper" and "sandbox".
> > > > Couldn't test email and modler because their builds failed.
> > >
> > >
> > > You only changed things for the Maven builds, right?  The nightlies
> > (which
> > > use Ant) won't reflect this.  (For the record, the Commons nightlies are
> > > compiled with JDK 1.4.2).
> >
> > Yes. I assume that most components are using maven for creating
> > releases. Is it an issue that they don't - or would there be an issue
> > if they did?
>
>
> It would be an issue if they did *not* use Maven ... the Ant build does not
> add these two attributes to the manifest.  I suspect you are correct,
> though, about most people using Maven for release builds ... but we should
> probably say something to that effect in the packaging instructions.

I can do that - packaging instructions that is (ant builds would be
more effort than the quick maven cut and paste). I assume you mean the
"release guidelines" pages on commons:

  http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/index.html

If it was somewhere else you were thinking of then let me know.

Niall

> Craig
>
>
> Niall
> >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > Also exec and openpgp only have maven2 build files. I downloaded
> > > > maven2 and got as far as working out how to add manifest entries - but
> > > > I couldn't work out how to refernece the compile plugin configuration
> > > > - so I've left the JDK bits commented out in the sandbox's pom.xml:
> > > >
> > > >    http://tinyurl.com/737qc
> > > >
> > > > Any maven2 experts feel free to jump in :-)
> > > >
> > > > I also added a bit to the release docs - as per Robert's suggestion.
> > > >
> > > > Niall
> > > >
> > > > On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK"
> > attributes
> > > > to
> > > > > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown
> > > > attributes
> > > > > are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source"
> > and
> > > > > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
> > > > >
> > > > > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK
> > version
> > > > used
> > > > > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the
> > > > commons
> > > > > components to do the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > Niall

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Henri Yandell
In reply to this post by craigmcc
On 2/13/06, Craig McClanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/14/06, Craig McClanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 2/13/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK I've done this for active components in "proper" and "sandbox".
> > > > Couldn't test email and modler because their builds failed.
> > >
> > >
> > > You only changed things for the Maven builds, right?  The nightlies
> > (which
> > > use Ant) won't reflect this.  (For the record, the Commons nightlies are
> > > compiled with JDK 1.4.2).
> >
> > Yes. I assume that most components are using maven for creating
> > releases. Is it an issue that they don't - or would there be an issue
> > if they did?
>
>
> It would be an issue if they did *not* use Maven ... the Ant build does not
> add these two attributes to the manifest.  I suspect you are correct,
> though, about most people using Maven for release builds ... but we should
> probably say something to that effect in the packaging instructions.

I thought we were supposed to use Ant because Maven can't run under
the JVMs we generally target (which also rules out OS X :) ).

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Dion Gillard-2
In reply to this post by Niall Pemberton
Which part of the email build was failing?

It's built fine for me lately

On 2/14/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> OK I've done this for active components in "proper" and "sandbox".
> Couldn't test email and modler because their builds failed.
>
> Also exec and openpgp only have maven2 build files. I downloaded
> maven2 and got as far as working out how to add manifest entries - but
> I couldn't work out how to refernece the compile plugin configuration
> - so I've left the JDK bits commented out in the sandbox's pom.xml:
>
>    http://tinyurl.com/737qc
>
> Any maven2 experts feel free to jump in :-)
>
> I also added a bit to the release docs - as per Robert's suggestion.
>
> Niall
>
> On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes to
> > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown attributes
> > are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source" and
> > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
> >
> > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version used
> > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the commons
> > components to do the same.
> >
> > Niall
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
"If I close my eyes it doesn't seem so dark." - SpongeBob SquarePants

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Dion Gillard-2
In reply to this post by Henri Yandell
On 2/14/06, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> I thought we were supposed to use Ant because Maven can't run under
> the JVMs we generally target (which also rules out OS X :) ).

huh? Maven 1.x runs fine on OSX....

--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
"If I close my eyes it doesn't seem so dark." - SpongeBob SquarePants

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by Dion Gillard-2
On 2/14/06, Dion Gillard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Which part of the email build was failing?

Sorry failing was too strong - it was trying to download javamail and
jaf and couldn't find them - so a config issue on my part (I assume
theres a repository I could point to to get them or configure it
locally?). As I was doing 30-40 components I just switly moved on to
the next :-(

Niall

> It's built fine for me lately
>
> On 2/14/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > OK I've done this for active components in "proper" and "sandbox".
> > Couldn't test email and modler because their builds failed.
> >
> > Also exec and openpgp only have maven2 build files. I downloaded
> > maven2 and got as far as working out how to add manifest entries - but
> > I couldn't work out how to refernece the compile plugin configuration
> > - so I've left the JDK bits commented out in the sandbox's pom.xml:
> >
> >    http://tinyurl.com/737qc
> >
> > Any maven2 experts feel free to jump in :-)
> >
> > I also added a bit to the release docs - as per Robert's suggestion.
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > On 2/10/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I just added "Compile-Source-JDK"  and "Compile-Target-JDK" attributes to
> > > the validator jar's manifest file (the manifest spec says unknown attributes
> > > are ignored) to show the setting of  maven's "maven.compile.source" and
> > > "maven.compile.target" attributes which the jar was created with.
> > >
> > > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=376748&view=rev
> > >
> > > I think its a good idea to give people "comfort" over the JDK version used
> > > to build a release. If no-one objects I will modify the rest of the commons
> > > components to do the same.
> > >
> > > Niall
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
> "If I close my eyes it doesn't seem so dark." - SpongeBob SquarePants
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Dion Gillard-2
On 2/14/06, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2/14/06, Dion Gillard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Which part of the email build was failing?
>
> Sorry failing was too strong - it was trying to download javamail and
> jaf and couldn't find them - so a config issue on my part (I assume
> theres a repository I could point to to get them or configure it
> locally?). As I was doing 30-40 components I just switly moved on to
> the next :-(

There's no repository available as Sun BCL forbids distribution in
this way. So it's download and place appropriately yourself
unfortunately :-(

--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
"If I close my eyes it doesn't seem so dark." - SpongeBob SquarePants

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Henri Yandell
In reply to this post by Dion Gillard-2
On 2/13/06, Dion Gillard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2/14/06, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > I thought we were supposed to use Ant because Maven can't run under
> > the JVMs we generally target (which also rules out OS X :) ).
>
> huh? Maven 1.x runs fine on OSX....

However Java 1.2 and 1.3 don't run on OS X; and most Commons
components target those JVMs - and I thought Maven doesn't run on
those JVMs either.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Brett Porter-2
Henri Yandell wrote:
> However Java 1.2 and 1.3 don't run on OS X; and most Commons
> components target those JVMs - and I thought Maven doesn't run on
> those JVMs either.

Run != target, but you'd still need them installed and all the
appropriate fork/path settings set. Which we've been over more than once
here :)

I thought the agreement was to compile with the latest, but -target 1.3,
and verify that there are no binary incompatibilities with earlier rt.jar's?

- Brett (now wondering about a Clirr extension that detects binary
incompatibility with certain JVMs).


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [all] Compile-Source-JDK and Compile-Target-JDK

Henri Yandell
On 2/14/06, Brett Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > However Java 1.2 and 1.3 don't run on OS X; and most Commons
> > components target those JVMs - and I thought Maven doesn't run on
> > those JVMs either.
>
> Run != target, but you'd still need them installed and all the
> appropriate fork/path settings set. Which we've been over more than once
> here :)
>
> I thought the agreement was to compile with the latest, but -target 1.3,
> and verify that there are no binary incompatibilities with earlier rt.jar's?

Entirely possible; I'm picking all this up again and probably have a
head full of confused memories and/or outdated decisions.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12