ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niklas Matthies <ml_ivy-u...@nmhq.net>
Subject Re: bug fixed
Date Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:57:29 GMT
On Tue 2009-02-10 at 13:06h, Maarten Coene wrote on ivy-user:
> ok I see, I misunderstood the problem.
> 
> I'm not sure it's a bug. I think there are probably good arguments
> for both scenario's, it all depends on your usecase.

If I understand correctly, the current behavior depends on the order
in which dependencies are specified for E (i.e. A first or B first).
In my opinion, the order in which dependencies are specified should
never matter, hence I would consider this to be a bug.

> I don't know how to fix it. You say the conflict-manager takes the
> non-transitive C. If that is true, maybe you can implement your own
> conflict-manager which takes the transitive C instead?
> 
> Maarten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Jim Adams <Jim.Adams@sas.com>
> To: "ivy-user@ant.apache.org" <ivy-user@ant.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:56:14 PM
> Subject: RE: bug fixed
> 
> I think it is a bug. I see that C does have a dependency on D.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Maarten Coene [mailto:maarten_coene@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 3:52 PM
> > To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: bug fixed
> >
> > I don't think this is a bug.
> > If your new C doesn't has a dependency on D, why should Ivy resolve it?
> > And if B needs D in order to function properly, you should maybe add a direct dependency
from B to D?
> >
> > Maarten
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Shawn Castrianni <Shawn.Castrianni@halliburton.com>
> > To: "ivy-user@ant.apache.org" <ivy-user@ant.apache.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:44:16 PM
> > Subject: bug fixed
> >
> > I have not upgraded to the latest ivy 2.0 yet, but have a question.  The version
I am currently using was built
> > from source a while ago, can't remember when.  The bug I find is this:
> >
> > C depends on D
> > A depends on C (non-transitively)
> > B depends on C
> > E depends on A and B
> >
> >        E
> >     A      B
> >        C
> >        D
> >
> > so you get the above diamond problem.  My problem is the conflict resolution at
C combined with the non-
> > transitive dependency between A and C.  If A depends on a newer C than B does, conflict
management takes the
> > most recent C via A, but then the non-transitive nature of that dependency wins
and I get NO D at all.  D is
> > still needed by B so I get missing dependencies.  I don't think non-transitive dependencies
should prevent
> > transitive dependencies from being retrieved if another transitive path is available
that need those
> > dependencies.  Is this considered a bug and is it fixed in the latest IVY 2.0? 
If this is not a bug, what do I
> > do to fix this?
> >
> > ---
> > Shawn Castrianni
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged
information for the sole use
> > of the intended recipient.  Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others
is strictly prohibited.  If
> > you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the
intended recipient), please
> > contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>       


-- Niklas Matthies

Mime
View raw message