When we implement something like <provides>, so that these can say "treat me like the real one if it ever turns up", then this is probably a reasonably expedient way.
I'd much rather they use a private repo where they can do what they want until they get it into ibiblio. I think that's a better solution. WDYT? - Brett Jason van Zyl wrote: > Brett Porter wrote: >> That's exactly the problem in this case - they're all in the servicemix >> groupId. >> >> This becomes harmful in transitive dependencies, as there's no way to >> express equivalence. So if you depend on OSGi and ServiceMix, you get >> two copies of OSGi, and all its dependencies. > > Projects are always going to do this for the sake of expediency and > under the license they can. > > They obviously did this as not to claim to have provided the official > JARs which I think is correct and being a good citizen. This is going to > happen again I'm sure because projects don't want to push the official > project JARs into the repository. For highly used components do we just > push them in, maybe a flag on the dependency to indicate this scenerio? > > We definitely prefer that projects themselves issue to the repository > but this isn't always going to happen and we should probably account for > it. > > Jason van Zyl > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
