Create valid OSGI Headers for byte buddy. #29
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This change introduces the maven-bundle-plugin to generate the correct MANIFEST.MF values. Due to the internal structure of byte buddy, these are pretty long. The build procedure also generates a few warnings about nonstandard osgi behaviour, which is ok, but might encourage future refactorings.
|
this should fix #5, @raphw I checked the jars, and they look ok, maybe you want to doublecheck that inclusions into the final jars did not change. |
raphw
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2015
Create valid OSGI Headers for byte buddy.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This change introduces the maven-bundle-plugin to generate the correct
MANIFEST.MF values. Due to the internal structure of byte buddy, these
are pretty long. The build procedure also generates a few warnings about
nonstandard osgi behaviour, which is ok, but might encourage future
refactorings.