Cool, happy it works. And +1 for documentation update.
Regards JB > Le 29 oct. 2020 à 11:52, Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk> a écrit : > > On 29/10/2020 06:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote: >> Hi Robert, > > Hey JB, > >> Do you have <javase/> define in your pom ? > > You are spot on. No, I did not, now I have and it works just fine. > > I will push a patch to documentation to mention it in > https://karaf.apache.org/manual/latest/#_instances_and_distributions_goals > :) > > Thanks, > Robert > >> >> Regards >> JB >> >>> Le 28 oct. 2020 à 13:35, Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk> a écrit : >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am giving the static distro a try and it works quite well, except one >>> problem. >>> >>> Running karaf-4.3.0 RC with Java 11, attempting to include >>> jakarta.activation-api/1.2.2 fails with: >>> >>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal >>>> org.apache.karaf.tooling:karaf-maven-plugin:4.3.0:assembly >>>> (process-resources) on project test-static: Unable to build assembly: >>>> Unable to resolve root: missing requirement [root] osgi.identity; >>>> osgi.identity=odl-jackson-2.11; type=karaf.feature; >>>> version=8.0.1.SNAPSHOT; >>>> filter:="(&(osgi.identity=odl-jackson-2.11)(type=karaf.feature)(version>=8.0.1.SNAPSHOT))" >>>> [caused by: >>>> Unable to resolve odl-jackson-2.11/8.0.1.SNAPSHOT: missing requirement >>>> [odl-jackson-2.11/8.0.1.SNAPSHOT] osgi.identity; >>>> osgi.identity=odl-jakarta-activation-api; type=karaf.feature; >>>> version="[8.0.1.SNAPSHOT,8.0.1.SNAPSHOT]" [caused by: >>>> Unable to resolve odl-jakarta-activation-api/8.0.1.SNAPSHOT: missing >>>> requirement [odl-jakarta-activation-api/8.0.1.SNAPSHOT] osgi.identity; >>>> osgi.identity=jakarta.activation-api; type=osgi.bundle; >>>> version="[1.2.2,1.2.2]"; resolution:=mandatory [ >>>> caused by: Unable to resolve jakarta.activation-api/1.2.2: missing >>>> requirement [jakarta.activation-api/1.2.2] osgi.ee; >>>> filter:="(&(osgi.ee=JavaSE)(version=9.0))"]]] -> [Help 1] >>> >>> i.e. static resolver seems to not consider JavaSE=9.0 to be available, >>> whereas the dynamic resolver works just fine. >>> >>> Any ideas where to fix or suppress this? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robert >>
