Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-maven-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 94077 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2010 20:35:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Feb 2010 20:35:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 80397 invoked by uid 500); 1 Feb 2010 20:35:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-maven-users-archive@maven.apache.org Received: (qmail 80307 invoked by uid 500); 1 Feb 2010 20:35:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Maven Users List" Reply-To: "Maven Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@maven.apache.org Received: (qmail 80297 invoked by uid 99); 1 Feb 2010 20:35:10 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:35:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of eciramella@upromise.com designates 12.197.7.59 as permitted sender) Received: from [12.197.7.59] (HELO transporter.corp.upromise.com) (12.197.7.59) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:35:03 +0000 Received: from upromise.com (wssmtp.corp.upromise.com [172.22.144.104]) by transporter.corp.upromise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE1C116B4 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:34:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from wssmtp ([127.0.0.1]) by upromise.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:34:42 -0500 Received: from knight.corp.upromise.com ([172.22.144.78]) by wssmtp with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:34:42 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4325 Received: from roadrunner.corp.upromise.com ([172.22.144.176]) by knight.corp.upromise.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:34:42 -0500 Received: from courier.corp.upromise.com ([fe80::393c:f7fa:9ed:d361]) by roadrunner.corp.upromise.com ([fe80::947f:e67d:6366:af72%10]) with mapi; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:34:41 -0500 From: "EJ Ciramella" To: Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:34:42 -0500 Subject: relocation tags Thread-Topic: relocation tags thread-index: Acqjfftem/PW1JmGTmW5Or7ICdJ0EQ== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-pmwin-version: 3.0.1.0, Antivirus-Engine: 3.3.1, Antivirus-Data: 4.49E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C32C5590B22C1B46A2CEABC254D4A742CBE9A27Ccouriercorpupro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2010 20:34:42.0156 (UTC) FILETIME=[FBA42AC0:01CAA37D] --_000_C32C5590B22C1B46A2CEABC254D4A742CBE9A27Ccouriercorpupro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So if we've relocated a library here - and deployed once to archiva, is it = too late to use the relocation tag? We've corrected a bunch of group ids, and wanted to break the build. Inste= ad, by not using the relocate tags, we've gained other errors and some sile= nt inclusions of the same jar (twice). --_000_C32C5590B22C1B46A2CEABC254D4A742CBE9A27Ccouriercorpupro_--