[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Karel Vervaeke updated FELIX-5283:
--
Attachment: foo.zip
Attached example maven module which demonstrates the problem
> Embed-Depend
Karel Vervaeke created FELIX-5283:
-
Summary: Embed-Dependency+Embed-Transitive=true does not embed
transitive dependencies
Key: FELIX-5283
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5283
Project
Likewise done, thanks!
david jencks
> On Jun 23, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> Done
>
> David Jencks wrote
>> If you can do it easily, I think that would be ideal, I can then re-do it.
>> May be silly, but provides a slightly easier to follow legal path.
>>
>> many thanks
>>
Done
David Jencks wrote
> If you can do it easily, I think that would be ideal, I can then re-do it.
> May be silly, but provides a slightly easier to follow legal path.
>
> many thanks
> david jencks
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziege...@apache.org
If you can do it easily, I think that would be ideal, I can then re-do it. May
be silly, but provides a slightly easier to follow legal path.
many thanks
david jencks
> On Jun 23, 2016, at 8:23 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> Should I revert?
>
> David Jencks wrote
>> If I had added the lice
Should I revert?
David Jencks wrote
> If I had added the license header then svn alone would have included the
> entire legal trail related to the file licensing. Now, anyone concerned with
> it has to also consult this mailing list to see that I emailed my agreement
> to the license change.
>
If I had added the license header then svn alone would have included the entire
legal trail related to the file licensing. Now, anyone concerned with it has
to also consult this mailing list to see that I emailed my agreement to the
license change.
david jencks
> On Jun 23, 2016, at 8:00 AM,
David Jencks wrote
> Um, I think you should have let me fix this as I’m the author? In any case I
> had a similar commit lined up to deliver and indeed intended the file to be
> apache-2.0 licensed.
Ehm, why should only you fix a problem? If, for whatever reason, these
files cant be apache lice
Um, I think you should have let me fix this as I’m the author? In any case I
had a similar commit lined up to deliver and indeed intended the file to be
apache-2.0 licensed.
david jencks
> On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:45 AM, cziege...@apache.org wrote:
>
> Author: cziegeler
> Date: Thu Jun 23 11:45:
