On 18/05/2010, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Sebb, > > > sebb wrote: > > > > On 18/05/2010, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > [snip] > > > >> 1 required artifact is missing. > >> > >> for artifact: > >> org.apache.bsf.testing:bsf-testing-e4x-1.6R7-Axiom:jar:3.1 > >> > >> from the specified remote repositories: > >> apache.snapshots (http://repository.apache.org/snapshots), > >> central (http://repo1.maven.org/maven2) > >> ================= %< ================== > >> > > > > Rats - it builds OK for me and for Hudson - I guess those must have > > got local copies. > > > > BTW, what JVM and OS are you using? > > > Currently: > $ mvn -version > Apache Maven 2.2.1 (r801777; 2009-08-06 21:16:01+0200) > Java version: 1.6.0_20 > Java home: /opt/sun-jdk-1.6.0.20/jre > Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: UTF-8 > OS name: "linux" version: "2.6.32-gentoo-r7" arch: "i386" Family: "unix" > > > >> BUILDING text file does not give any hint where this artifact should be > >> coming from. > > > > Nor should it need to - it should be in the maven POMs. > > > > I tidied up some of the repo dependencies as I thought I found it in > > central. I assumed that Maven would tell me if the dependency could not be > > resolved. > > > > Is there any way to check this, apart from deleting the local maven repo? > > > No, but you might use an alternate settings.xml file (-s) instead that > locates the local repo somewhere else to a temporary path.
I might try that, thanks! > > > Try adding > > > > <repositories> > > <repository> > > <id>wso2</id> > > <url>http://dist.wso2.org/maven2</url> > > <snapshots> > > <enabled>true</enabled> > > </snapshots> > > </repository> > > </repositories> > > > > to testing/e4x-1.6R7-Axiom/pom.xml > > > > and see if that allows the test to continue. > > > Yes, if I add this, the build runs through. However, you're aware that the > usage of repositories within the POMs is strongly discouraged and IIRC will > no longer work in M3? No, I was not aware of that. How are such dependencies supposed to be managed then? > > > I'd like to see if there are any further problems before proceeding > > with another RC. > > > Fine with me, I have some more pets in my compiler zoo ... ;-) > > > > > >> BTW: Is BSF 3.1 now compatible with Jexl2? Jexl2 has now its own script > >> engine support, but BSF engines will force Jexl 1.2 in which creates > >> incompatibilities for Jexl2 in BSF 3.0. > > > > Start a new thread for that. > > > OK. > > > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
