Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 89797 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2006 13:49:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Sep 2006 13:49:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 21565 invoked by uid 500); 21 Sep 2006 13:49:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 21475 invoked by uid 500); 21 Sep 2006 13:49:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 21410 invoked by uid 99); 21 Sep 2006 13:49:06 -0000 Received: from idunn.apache.osuosl.org (HELO idunn.apache.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.84) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:49:06 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,NO_REAL_NAME Received: from [209.237.227.198] ([209.237.227.198:52907] helo=brutus.apache.org) by idunn.apache.osuosl.org (ecelerity 2.1.1.8 r(12930)) with ESMTP id 2F/6C-04092-B2892154 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:48:29 -0700 Received: by brutus.apache.org (Postfix, from userid 33) id D7F75714306; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:44:19 +0000 (GMT) From: bugzilla@apache.org To: dev@ant.apache.org Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40561] - property expansion with prefix troubles in property files In-Reply-To: X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Message-Id: <20060921134419.D7F75714306@brutus.apache.org> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:44:19 +0000 (GMT) X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG� RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND� INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40561 ------- Additional Comments From asfBugzilla.stratic@spamgourmet.com 2006-09-21 13:44 ------- (In reply to comment #5) Yes, I understand and I just want to mention that there is another bug (or undocumented behaviour). On my side, I have found a workaround immediately: 1) Never introduce dependencies inside the same property file. 2) Express dependent values in build files or separate property files. The resulting constraint for property files users is: Never use properties redefined locally. Instead, use their literal value (which is defined locally). These rules should work for anybody without introducing huge constraints. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org