Wicket itself doesn't declare the dependencies this way. So, why should wicketstuff-core?
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM, James Carman <[email protected]> wrote: > But, I shouldn't *have* to do that, Brill. That's the whole point. > Breaking transitive dependency resolution is a bad thing in the maven > world. We're handing dependencies the wrong way if we're breaking > stuff. > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Brill Pappin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Actually that might mess up the rest of us :) >> >> If you need those lobs to be includes, simply add them to you pom and change >> their scope so they are included... The build should then override the >> provided scope in the parent. >> >> - Brill Pappin >> Sent from my mobile. >> >> >> On 21-Mar-09, at 9:01 AM, James Carman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The dependencies in the main wicketstuff-core are "scoped" for stuff >>> like slf4j and jetty to be "provided". This totally screwed me up >>> when I was trying to write an example application (the log4j stuff >>> wasn't showing up because it was marked as provided by the parent >>> pom). Does anyone care if I remove the scope declarations from the >>> <dependencyManagement> section in the wicketstuff-core parent pom? It >>> fixed my problem when I did. >>> >>> James >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
