Yes it was intentional. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:33 PM, EJ Ciramella <[email protected]> wrote: > I've noticed recently that "copy-dependencies" finds the transitive > dependencies, but "copy" does not. > > Is this intentional? > > We'd like to NOT have to repeat a majority of the dependencies when just > using "copy" as the full list of transitive dependencies is bigger than > what's needed. > > > ________________________________ > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and the information transmitted within > including any attachments is only for the recipient(s) to which it is > intended and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of; or taking of any action in > reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please send the > e-mail back by replying to the sender and permanently delete the entire > message and its attachments from all computers and network systems involved > in its receipt. >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
