Is there any chance you can post a simple example... or perhaps the output of
mvn dependency:resolve -X I use ranges in the way you are describing and do not and have not experienced any problems like that... however I have not dependencyManagement sections in any of my transitions... On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:19:49 sverhagen wrote: > Hi. > > We've recently switched from one dependency strategy for our internal > dependencies to another: > - "Old": all modules define <dependency>'s without <version>'s and inherit > all the same parent with a <dependencyManagement> section that defines > <version>'s for all modules, e.g. as 0.0.7. > - "New": all modules define their own <dependency>'s and <version>'s as > ranges, e.g. as [0.0.7,), and do no longer inherit a dependency management > section > > We're slowly releasing this into our system. (We can't release everything > at once, since a number of modules are worked on hence unstable.) > > Now we have a module A with a <dependency> on B-0.1.4 (and some more on C, > D, ...). From pure anger I've defined the dependency on B as [0.1.4], which > I always thought was a very strong way of expressing a version. When I > build A, I would expect Maven to either give me a B-0.1.4 or COMPLAIN about > it. Instead I'm getting an older version, say 0.0.6 (which does not fit the > range I've defined oh-so near-by). When I look in dependency:tree, it shows > me B as direct dependency of A (correct), with version 0.0.6 (supposedly > incorrect) without giving any particulars like "managed from". > > A is of the "new" regime, the others mixed. All versions of B are from the > "old" regime. > > Why am I not the boss of my own dependency versions??????? > > Thanks. -- Michael McCallum Enterprise Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
