[MASSEMBLY-986] Minimal default Manifest configuration of jar archiver should be respected

[slawekjaranowski]

Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:

• Make sure there is a JIRA issue filed
  for the change (usually before you start working on it). Trivial changes like typos do not
  require a JIRA issue. Your pull request should address just this issue, without
  pulling in other changes.
• Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
• Format the pull request title like [MASSEMBLY-XXX] - Fixes bug in ApproximateQuantiles,
  where you replace MASSEMBLY-XXX with the appropriate JIRA issue. Best practice
  is to use the JIRA issue title in the pull request title and in the first line of the
  commit message.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Run mvn clean verify to make sure basic checks pass. A more thorough check will
  be performed on your pull request automatically.
• You have run the integration tests successfully (mvn -Prun-its clean verify).

If your pull request is about ~20 lines of code you don't need to sign an
Individual Contributor License Agreement if you are unsure
please ask on the developers list.

To make clear that you license your contribution under
the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
you have to acknowledge this by using the following check-box.

• I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004

• In any other case, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

[michael-o]

I am still not fully convinced here. For me the gain is questionable or I don't understand it completely. I'd like to hear @hboutemy's opinion on this.

[hboutemy]

I don't understand what issue we're trying to solve
I don't understand the title of the issue
The only aspect I understand in the Jira issue description is that "it may break Reproducible Builds", but I don't see how: I never have RB broken by something like that (because Plexus Archiver component version is reproducible)

please explain what the problem is (theoretical or in real life) that is being tried to solve

[slawekjaranowski]

@hboutemy, @michael-o - Similar change was done in apache/maven-archiver@7041fca

Please try to upgrade plexus-archiver - #119 - it is cause of this issue

[michael-o]

@hboutemy, @michael-o - Similar change was done in apache/maven-archiver@7041fca

Please try to upgrade plexus-archiver - #119 - it is cause of this issue

Give me a couple of days to look into. I am currently overloaded.

[slawekjaranowski]

@hboutemy can you update your comment - is it more understandable for you now?

[hboutemy]

IIUC, what you are trying to achieve is to avoid Reproducible Builds output to change when changing plexus-archiver version (like proposed by dependabot in #119 ) because it requires to update the checksums in IT, which is cumbersome

[slawekjaranowski]

Now PR contains only required changes to achieve goal.

[hboutemy]

LGTM