yes that was the advice I gave on this thread originally. you do have to fight a bit with the shade plugin to get them shaded in though... which is why I think we may need to rethink how we do shade
On 6 November 2016 at 22:36, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: > Stephen Connolly wrote: > > > Hmmm I did some digging... > > > > > https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.2.3/apidocs/org/apache/ > maven/artifact/handler/ArtifactHandler.html#isIncludesDependencies() > > is i think the idea JvZ was hinting at. > > > > For the case where a shaded JAR shades *everything* then a custom > > packaging will work as we could set this flag and it would stop the > > transitive dependencies being propagated... but most people do not shade > > *all* dependencies, rather they shade a subset. > > > > I think we may need to re-think how we do this or rethink the model being > > read-only > > Set the shaded dependencies as optional. This might at least technically > produce the proper dependency tree for dependent artifacts. > > Cheers, > Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > >
