Re: [orbit-dev] Pushing bcprov and bcpkix 1.51 into Orbit

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I see these have already been contributed,
full 4 part versions, and signed by Eclipse.org. Is that what was expected?

(I don't see 'prebuilt' in the map file,
but usually, if someone does want a 'prebuilt' bundle, there's a part of
the build script I need to update .. just FYI). 

My concern (open to discussion) is that
our typical rule of thumb is to name bundles after their main namespace
("org.bouncycastle"). 
Is there a reason that wasn't done in
this case? 

A more minor issue, I see you have 
Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment:
J2SE-1.5,JavaSE-1.6,JavaSE-1.7,JavaSE-1.8

But I think only J2SE-15 is needed (since,
BREE means *minimum* Java runtime required). Right? (There are occasional
reasons to list more than one, but that's primarily for Java 4 or less).
Any reason for it in this case? 

Even much more minor ... we do typically
group "like bundles" together in the map file, even though that
doesn't represent chronological order). 

= = = = 

On the 2 part version numbers ... we
can always get an exception ... if there's a good reason for it. 

= = = = =

On the signing issue (I've not read
original comment that was referred to) is it the case where there is basically
a split package? So, must be signed by same certificate? If so, I think
leaving unsigned is best we could do (if you are saying we provide framework,
and others, not us, provide the implementation?)

= = = = = 

Hope these brief notes help ... sorry
they are a bit "late". 

Thanks, 




From:      
 Roland Grunberg <rgrunber@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 Orbit Developer discussion
<orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Cc:      
 Matthias Sohn <matthias.sohn@xxxxxxx>
Date:      
 05/08/2015 04:25 PM
Subject:    
   Re: [orbit-dev]
Pushing bcprov and bcpkix 1.51 into Orbit
Sent by:    
   orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

> Bouncycastle 1.51 libraries contain proper OSGi
manifests (this wasn't the
> case
> for 1.47 which I failed to provide in Orbit due to the mentioned JCE
> signing issues).
> So sticking to the original signing and not resigning them with Eclipse
> signature
> should avoid breaking the JCE signatures.
> 
> We (JGit) plan to go for Bouncycastle 1.52 and filed corresponding
CQs.

I guess you're referring to using prebuilt=true ?

There's one issue I see with the manifest, and that's the Bundle-Version
being '1.51' (or '1.52') as opposed to say '1.52.0.qualifier', as Orbit
guidelines would require. Is an exception possible ? How would the build
work in this case ?

Cheers,
-- 
Roland Grunberg
_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev