Maven Shared Components
  1. Maven Shared Components
  2. MSHARED-191

Specification-Version must not contain "-SNAPSHOT"

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Reopened Reopened
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: maven-archiver-2.4.1
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: maven-archiver
    • Labels:
      None
    • Environment:
      Ubuntu 10.10, Maven 2.2.1 and Maven 3.0.3, OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea6 1.9.7) (6b20-1.9.7-0ubuntu1) (64 bits)
    • Testcase included:
      yes
    • Patch Submitted:
      Yes
    • Number of attachments :
      1

      Description

      When building an artifact with a SNAPSHOT version,
      Specification-Version and Implementation-Version are both set to $

      {pom.version} (as described in the documentation).

      But this will break the deployment in a container like WebLogic Server 10.3.4.
      This behavior is compliant with specification
      http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/versioning/spec/versioning2.html#wp89939
      where it is said that "Specification version numbers use a Dewey decimal notation consisting of numbers seperated by periods"

      Further in this spec, in § "1.5.10 Rationale for limiting Implementation version numbers to identity", it is explained why Implementation-Version need to be compared strictly for equality.

      So we can understand that:
      - Specification-Version must NOT have "-SNAPSHOT" suffix. This is legal to keep only the beginning of ${pom.version}

      , because it represents the spec version, not the build ;

      • Implementation-Version has to be set to $ {pom.version}

        to represent the exact version of the build.

      This used to be the behavior in Maven 1:
      http://maven.apache.org/maven-1.x/plugins/jar/manifest.html

        Activity

        Hide
        Jörg Schaible added a comment -
        Show
        Jörg Schaible added a comment - At least there is a workaround: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.devel/113911
        Hide
        Michael Osipov added a comment -

        Please refer to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/The+Great+JIRA+Cleanup+of+2014 if you're wondering why this issue was closed out.

        Show
        Michael Osipov added a comment - Please refer to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/The+Great+JIRA+Cleanup+of+2014 if you're wondering why this issue was closed out.
        Hide
        Romain Buquet added a comment -

        I read through "The Great JIRA Cleanup of 2014" article. I understand your motivations. It's a tough move, with the risk of a lot of frustrations. But it is for the best. Good job!

        Now for my issue, I'm asking to reopen it because I think that it is compliant with your legitimate conditions: it's clearly described, the bug violates a Java specification, a patch candidate is provided, and it looks that it will not be too long to fix...

        Hope you will agree with me, and that we can close this issue once and for all!

        Show
        Romain Buquet added a comment - I read through "The Great JIRA Cleanup of 2014" article. I understand your motivations. It's a tough move, with the risk of a lot of frustrations. But it is for the best. Good job! Now for my issue, I'm asking to reopen it because I think that it is compliant with your legitimate conditions: it's clearly described, the bug violates a Java specification, a patch candidate is provided, and it looks that it will not be too long to fix... Hope you will agree with me, and that we can close this issue once and for all!
        Hide
        Michael Osipov added a comment - - edited

        Perfectly fine that you have reopened this issue. Can you check the patch against trunk, run all tests and update if necessary? I would be included to merge this one.

        Show
        Michael Osipov added a comment - - edited Perfectly fine that you have reopened this issue. Can you check the patch against trunk, run all tests and update if necessary? I would be included to merge this one.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Romain Buquet
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated: