[
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1977?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=277793#comment-277793
]
Jean-Noel Rouvignac edited comment on MNG-1977 at 12/11/11 5:22 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
@Arnaud Sorry, I went for the easiest to implement. If you do not like it this
way, fair enough, we can do it otherwise. I originally started with such change
to the pom.xml:
{code}<project>
<dependencies>
<exclusions>
<exclusion>
<groupId>com.mycompany</groupId>
<artifactId>myproject</artifactId>
<classifier>optional</classifier>
</exclusion>
</exclusions>
<dependency>
...
</dependency>
...
</dependencies>
...
</project>{code}
No I did not test with older versions of maven.
I saw that maven-3 has got some validation mechanism for the scope so I think
it would reject it.
For maven-2 I need to check. Indeed the following scenario would be
catastrophic:
"And when a maven version ignores it, what does it do ? It uses the compile
scope ? #fail in that case, instead of excluding it, you explicitely add it
(transitively)".
I will test both of these and let you know.
Same, it does not really matter to me which mechanism you prefer to use. Just
tell me how you want it to look in the pom.xml and I can have a look at doing
it.
Jean-Noel
was (Author: jnrouvignac):
@Arnaud Sorry, I went for the easiest to implement. If you do not like it
this way, fair enough, we can do it otherwise. I originally started with such
change to the pom.xml:
<project>
<dependencies>
<exclusions>
<exclusion>
<groupId>com.mycompany</groupId>
<artifactId>myproject</artifactId>
<classifier>optional</classifier>
</exclusion>
</exclusions>
<dependency>
...
</dependency>
...
</dependencies>
...
</project>
No I did not test with older versions of maven.
I saw that maven-3 has got some validation mechanism for the scope so I think
it would reject it.
For maven-2 I need to check. Indeed the following scenario would be
catastrophic:
"And when a maven version ignores it, what does it do ? It uses the compile
scope ? #fail in that case, instead of excluding it, you explicitely add it
(transitively)".
I will test both of these and let you know.
Same, it does not really matter to me which mechanism you prefer to use. Just
tell me how you want it to look in the pom.xml and I can have a look at doing
it.
Jean-Noel
> Global dependency exclusions
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: MNG-1977
> URL: https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1977
> Project: Maven 2 & 3
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: POM
> Reporter: Kees de Kooter
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: global_excls_it-test_v2.patch,
> global_excls_it-test_v3.patch, global_excls_maven3_v2.patch,
> global_excls_maven3_v3.patch
>
>
> I depend on some libraries, which in turn depend on something
> (which in turn depend on something) that I don't want, because I declare
> some other artifact in my pom.xml.
> A concrete example: I don't want that the artifact "xerces" is imported in
> my project because I declare to depend on "xercesImpl" which ships newer
> libraries but with the same namespaces.
> I guess I would need an "exclude transitive dependency at all", either
> globally or from this and that artifact. I saw the <exclusions> tag, but it
> forces me to be very verbose and have exact control on what is required by a
> dependency.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
