commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: sanctioning commons-logging version "99.0-does-not-exist"
Date Thu, 14 May 2009 10:03:55 GMT
On 14/05/2009, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > Has anyone tried declaring commons logging as <scope>system</scope>
?
>
>
> Beg your pardon, but this is against any use of transitive
>  dependencies. Likewise for "provided", of course. If it is a
>  dependency, then it is. If anyone else intends to replace it, okay,
>  but this is the users decision.
>

Not sure what you mean about transitive dependencies here.

AIUI, what the 99.0-does-not-exist is trying to do is to provide a
fake resolution for people who want to use jcl-over-slf4j instead of
commons-logging.

The referenced blog had a posting suggesting using
<scope>provided</scope> but apparently that still adds commons logging
as a dependency.

I was suggesting trying "system" scope instead.
If people want to try that for their systems, well why not?

But I agree with others that version 99 is a really bad idea.

Perhaps "0.0-does-not-exist" might be a more acceptable solution, or
maybe "0.0-null-version" as it does need to exist.

>  Jochen
>
>  --
>  Don't trust a government that doesn't trust you.
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message