we've seen there are two projects that use the older
version of org.slf4j.api ... Code Recommenders and Jubula. Any chance you
can "move up"?
And, we've found two projects that "provide"
the old, incompatible logging fragment ch.qos.logback.slf4j 1.0.0.v20120123-1500,
both with m2e in the name :) ... any chance you can provide more specific
input, that includes only the most recent?
My suspicion is that it is (mostly) the old fragments
that are problematic ... That is, p2 sees them as "valid solutions"
to the constraints its given ... but, it is not a satisfactory solution
to the humans using the system. One "cure" might be to make sure
only the most recent fragment is available in the repositories that
you "provide" as input to the common repository.
See the bug for suggestions on how to do that ...
how to provide more specific versions of stuff, without literally removing
old stuff. (released repositories are supposed to be immutable ... but,
you do not need to "provide" your whole entire composite repo
as input to the common repo ... only the most recent, specific things that
you are willing to have end up there).
David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
05/16/2013 01:03 PM
Code Recommenders and other users of org.slf4j.api
If you use "org.slf4j.api" please see bug
There's several complicated issues going on in that bug, but one cure might
be if everyone "used the latest" version of org.slf4j.api (1.7.2,
instead of 1.6.4).
>From the b3 aggregator log, it appears that Code Recommenders is the one
"pulling in" version 1.6.4.
Is that on purpose? That is, do you purposely constrain/include that older
version? Any chance to move up to the latest?
These loggers (and their fragments) are a case where having multiple versions
in the repository can mess up other projects -- that is, things "work
fine" if using your individual project repository ... but, not once
one big repository tries to "satisfy everyone".
While there might be other bugs involved causing the fundamental problem,
it seems that "using the latest" would be a quick, practical
solution, here at RC1.
Please comment in the bug, or (anyone) make other suggestions ... but,
it is something that needs to be solved.
If I don't hear anything soon, I may try a test run temporarily disabling
Code Recommenders, just to test the hypothesis that it is the (only) source
of these "conflicting" requirements.
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list