I commented in 255 about this, it'd be easy to add a parameter to
FELIX-199 bundleall goal to specify how deep to process the tree, you
could set it to 1 to bundle only the direct dependencies
On 3/25/07, Stuart McCulloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Alin,
Thanks for the comments - I'm not completely adverse to the idea of handling
the transitive dependency issue inside the plugin, just questioning the benefit
given there's (imho) a workable solution.
I'm also worried that changing the way the bundle pulls in artifacts might break
other users. I believe this issue is only for the 'wrapping jar' case
- is that right?
Anyway, this is just my own opinion - looking forward to hearing more views :)
Cheers, Stuart
On 26/03/07, Alin Dreghiciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nice summary Stuart,
>
> I also posted some comments on FELIX-262 and FELIX-255.
>
> Alin Dreghiciu
>
> On 3/25/07, Stuart McCulloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Currently there are 8 open issues for the maven-bundle-plugin. I've
> > written up a
> > short one-line status for each of them (inc. # of votes, whether a patch
> > exists)
> > along with a suggested course of action in another table. (see attached
> > file)
> >
> > The suggested actions are all MHO, so apologies if I've misrepresented any
> > of the issues, or the patches. Please post a follow-up message pointing
> > out
> > any mistakes, updates or alternative suggestions.
> >
> > Basically I recommend looking at FELIX-199 first, as it also solves
> > several
> > other issues. The one thorny area is over maven dependencies: whether to
> > get the user to handle this outside in the pom with other plugins, or to
> > add
> > options to the bundle plugin for the sake of convenience (FELIX-255/262).
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Stuart
> >
> >
>
--
Cheers, Stuart
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
