The problem was not with SLF4J per-se. It is the one that ends up in the middle of the mess because it was non greedly required.
On 2010-09-01, at 2:09 PM, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote: > Am 01.09.2010 18:28, schrieb Pascal Rapicault: >> 2) Add the SLF4J JCL bundle to each EPP Package in SR1. Though this may >> appear to be a weird fix, this will result in a consistent installation. The >> background here is the SLF4J bundles were being brought in the epp packages >> because of the p2 bug and again because of the bug their uninstallation was >> leaving the system in an inconsistent state. The idea of having those >> bundles be part of the SR1 packages is that when the update occurs the >> uninstallation of these bundles will not occur thus leaving the installation >> in a consistent state. >> Pros: Everybody can update >> Cons: "Code change" in that we ship a new bundles > > Weird indeed. The SLF4J metadata now correctly requires a logger > implementation. But do we know of any side effects if both - SLF4J JCL > as well as org.apache.commons.logging - are available in the system? > > -Gunnar > > -- > Gunnar Wagenknecht > [email protected] > http://wagenknecht.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > p2-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev _______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
