On Nov 19, 2007 5:22 PM, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 19, 2007 10:18 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > RAT should not expect MANIFEST.MF to include a licence.
+1 > > Would it be useful if it insisted on certain other contents of the > > manifest file instead? > > > > e.g. > > > > Implementation-Title: > > Implementation-Vendor: > > Implementation-Vendor-Id: > > Implementation-Version: > > > > Specification-Title: > > Specification-Vendor: > > Specification-Version: > > > > Just a thought. > > It's a good idea. Maybe it could optionally check for that stuff for now. +1 (hopefully RAT will arrive sometime soon so everyone can start hackin') - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
