Niklas Matthies-2 wrote: > > If types were hierarchical nodes in a category graph, and a mapping > mechanism would be provided like for confs, then I would agree with > you. Types would be almost like a second type of confs then. Which I > think would be very useful. >
Hm...true, types are flat and non-mappable. For me living mostly in a java/ibiblio world, the "all binaries" super type isn't a problem--since I haven't used ivy for non-java projects, I don't know how often the "any binary type even if I don't know about it ahead of time" thing would come up. Though I understand the gist of it. Niklas Matthies-2 wrote: > >> Where I'll get the jetty source but not the jetty-util source >> because they forgot the "sources->sources(*)" mapping. > > Luckily there's dual resolvers. ;) > Yes, it's not ideal, but at least you *can* do something about it that > way. > Hehe, okay, technically yes, but yuck. The pom->ivy translation works well enough for me that I'd prefer to not maintain other projects' ivy files by hand just because of the non-transitive source. Which I talked myself into it being a bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1137 - Stephen -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sources-as-conf-or-type-tp26028446p26124538.html Sent from the ivy-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
