It's already on the roadmap. I expect it was not being included transitively because the container is test scope.
- Brett John Casey wrote: > it'd almost require an index of classes -> artifacts, but that index > would be immensely useful IMO. Once we have something like that in a > maintained state, it'd be easy to write a plugin to verify this sort of > thing. > > Mark Hobson wrote: >> On 30/11/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> that's fair, but if it's directly used, it should be directly specified. >>> It wasn't working on this end, so I'm not sure what the difference is... >> >> >> I've often encountered this situation where direct dependencies are >> not declared as they are supplied transitively. Is there any feature >> on the roadmap to either warn when this happens, or have an explicit >> 'export' option on dependencies to safeguard against this? >> >> Mark >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
