kk, I'll go for it then; thx for the update. Kind regards, Andreas
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:22, Harald Wellmann <hwellmann...@googlemail.com>wrote: > I agree, we might as well include _all_ OPS4J dependencies in the > version info. That would mean adding OPS4J Base as well as Pax > Swissbox. > > Cheers, > Harald > > Am 20. Februar 2012 11:51 schrieb Andreas Pieber <anpie...@gmail.com>: > > btw, I've patches for both of my requests ready. I just want to know what > > you think about it before I push them. > > > > Kind regards, > > Andreas > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:42, Andreas Pieber <anpie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hey, > >> > >> I'm curious, is there any reason that you retrieve the pax-url version > via > >> the pax exam Info class, but not the base version? It would definitely > help > >> me in pax-exam-karaf (since I can deploy the version required by > pax-exam > >> automatically then). Are there any (logical) problems if I add it? > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Andreas > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > general mailing list > > general@lists.ops4j.org > > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >
_______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
