Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B31CE10904 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 13:58:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 90875 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jul 2013 13:58:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 90792 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jul 2013 13:58:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 90782 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jul 2013 13:58:33 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 07 Jul 2013 13:58:33 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of amichai2@amichais.net designates 192.115.134.103 as permitted sender) Received: from [192.115.134.103] (HELO mail.freeutils.net) (192.115.134.103) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 07 Jul 2013 13:58:27 +0000 Message-ID: <1863917530.391373205489326.JavaMail.root@shefa> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-UserIsAuth: true Received: from line134-103.adsl.actcom.co.il ([192.115.134.103]) by mail.freeutils.net (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.1) with SMTP ID 294 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:58:09 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 16:58:08 +0300 From: "A. Rothman" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 To: dev@cxf.apache.org Subject: DOSGi Karaf feature dependency versions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, I just noticed in features.xml the ZooKeeper version was left behind at 3.3.1, so I fixed it to use the same version as the pom (using the pom variable). In addition, the feature specifies jdom version 1.1_3, whereas the pom specifies 1.1.2_1. I wasn't sure why the discrepancy here (in the opposite direction) or if it's ok to just upgrade the pom and fix the features to use the same variable as the pom, so I left it as it is for now, but would be happy to fix if you guys say it's ok. Amichai