I think we can safely ignore. If a problem arises we hardwire the
dependency, so not a big deal at all

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 6:15 PM Girish Vasmatkar <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Jacques
>
> It looks like every transitive dependency defined in our build.gradle to
> xml-apis is getting resolved to xml-apis:2.0.2.
>
> +--- xom:xom:1.2.5
>
> |    |    +--- xml-apis:xml-apis:1.3.03 -> 2.0.2
>
> +--- xml-apis:xml-apis:1.3.04 -> 2.0.2
>
> org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-client:3.1.3
>
> |    \--- org.apache.xmlrpc:xmlrpc-common:3.1.3
>
> |         \--- org.apache.ws.commons.util:ws-commons-util:1.0.2
>
> |              +--- junit:junit:3.8.1 -> 4.11 (*)
>
> |              \--- xml-apis:xml-apis:1.0.b2 -> 2.0.2
>
> Apparently, this has been occurring since earlier gradle versions as well
> and no support yet.
>
> Does the build fail due to this? If it is just a warning, then may be we
> can live with it. And if there is a hard dependency on it, then may be we
> should try forcing the version as shown in the SOF link you sent.
>
> While I do not have any particular opinion on this, may be others can weigh
> in and take a call as to what should be done.
>
> Best,
> Girish
> HotWax Systems
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:28 PM Jacques Le Roux <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Le 21/09/2018 à 13:29, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I cleared by Gradle cache, so had to reload all.
> > my
> >
> > >
> > > I stumbled upon this is in log
> > >
> > >    Download
> > https://jcenter.bintray.com/xml-apis/xml-apis/2.0.2/xml-apis-2.0.2.pom
> > >    POM relocation to an other version number is not fully supported in
> > Gradle : xml-apis:xml-apis:2.0.2 relocated to xml-apis:xml-apis:1.0.b2.
> > >    Please update your dependency to directly use the correct version
> > 'xml-apis:xml-apis:1.0.b2'.
> > >
> > > xml-apis-2.0.2 is not a dependency we define in build.gradle.
> > >
> > > We could use this trick
> >
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22613596/gradle-download-dependency-error
> > >
> > > But should we or should we simply neglect and wait it resolves by
> itself?
> > >
> > > Jacques
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to