ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xavier Hanin" <xavier.ha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Missing configuration in eviction result
Date Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:02:58 GMT
On 9/28/07, Johannes Stamminger <Johannes.Stamminger@astrium.eads.net>
wrote:
>
>
> Hi!
>
> On Friday 28 September 2007, Xavier Hanin wrote:
> > On 9/26/07, Johannes Stamminger <Johannes.Stamminger@astrium.eads.net>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > we observe the following:
> > >
> > > moduleA depends libX-1.+ in conf U
> > > moduleA depends moduleB in conf U,V
> > > moduleB depends libX-[1.5,) in conf U,V
> > > (conf mappings straight forward, U,V->@)
> > >
> > > Lates libX version in the repo is e.g. 1.7
>
> ...
>
> > What I am not that sure is how it should behave with having requested it
> >
> > > once
> > > with 1.+ and the other time with 1.5 (with 1.7 being the latest one
> > > again).
> > > IMHO I would again expect libX being included in both configurations
> > > again -
> > > as both resolved versions, 1.5 and 1.7, contain conf U and V ... ?
> >
> > I'm not sure of what you say here... you're now talking about 1.5, but I
> > thought you were not asking 1.5 anywhere, only [1.5,) which actually
> > resolves to 1.7. Using the rules [1.5,) or 1.+ should be equivalent in
> your
> > case (since the latest version is 1.7). So if Ivy is lost with these
> two,
> > it's a bug.
>
> I tried to say, that I am not sure if both configurations should be
> included,
> if the requested versions defined by the dependencies resolve to different
> ones (before conflict management), e.g. with modified example
>
> moduleB depends libX-1.5 in conf U,V
>
> Now, before conflict management, two *different* versions are resolved,
> 1.5
> and 1.7. Now 1.5 indeed get's evicted and I was thinking about, if it
> would
> be correct to "merge" the requested configurations. Maybe this should be
> done
> only for those, being included in both versions?


Until now Ivy has always considered configurations as isolated. So in this
case you would end up with libX 1.5 in V and 1.7 in U. Changing this
behavior would be quite complex, and may lead to some troubles: what happens
when you resolve only one configuration out of two? I think dependency
resolution must no depend on how the configurations are resolved, so we
would have to take care of all configurations resolution even when you
resolve only one configuration... not a very good idea IMO.

> Could you open a JIRA issue, with some more details about your settings,
> > your ivy version, and your ivy files. A junit test reproducing the
> problem
> > would be great!
>
> IVY-613. When time permits, I will try to provide unit tests.


Ok thanks,

Xavier

Kind regards,
> Johannes Stamminger
>
> This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
> privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately,
> do not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it for any
> purpose or disclose its content to any person, but delete this message and
> any attachments from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all liability if
> this email transmission was virus corrupted, altered or falsified.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Astrium GmbH Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Thomas Mueller -
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Evert Dudok (Vorsitzender), Dr. Reinhold Lutz, Pablo
> Salame Fischer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Muenchen - Registergericht: Amtsgericht Muenchen,
> HRB Nr. 107 647
>



-- 
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
http://xhab.blogspot.com/
http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
http://www.xoocode.org/

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message