On 14/05/2009, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, sebb <seb...@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-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
