We'll try that, although I'm not sure that it's the right thing, because in general we do want transitivity (i.e. when resolving conf1 I would expect to get the dependencies of other1), but when resolving conf2 we don't even want to get the other-module artifacts of other1 (unless they are also artifacts of other2).
With regard to my first question: So it is indeed by design that when resolving conf2 one also gets the dependencies of the mapping conf1->other1? Because the documentation doesn't seem to say anything about that. -- Niklas Matthies On Fri 2009-08-28 at 13:10h, Gilles Scokart wrote on ivy-user: > Could you set the transitivity to false ? Didn't it solve your problem? > > Gilles Scokart > > > 2009/8/27 Niklas Matthies <[email protected]> > > > On Thu 2009-08-27 at 22:40h, Niklas Matthies wrote on ivy-user: > > : > > > In the example given on [1] where confmappingoverride is set to true > > > > > > <dependency name="other-module" conf="conf1->other1;conf2->other2" /> > > > > > > when resolving conf2, is the result for other-module supposed to be > > > the configuration other2, or the union of other1 and other2? > > > > If it is the latter, then in the case that the existing mapping is the > > default mapping conf1->conf1 and is not needed, as a workaround conf1 > > could be mapped to the empty set of configurations. My question: Is > > there a designated way to specify a mapping to the empty set, e.g. > > "conf1->" or maybe "conf1->!*", or something like "conf1->[false]*"? > > > > -- Niklas Matthies > >
