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
On Nov 19, 2007 10:18 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RAT should not expect MANIFEST.MF to include a licence.
>
> 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:
RAT should not expect MANIFEST.MF to include a licence.
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:
Specif
