You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> on 2010/10/27 15:34:28 UTC
[apacheds] protocol-ldap's POM lacks dependency on bcprov
Hi,
the protocol-ldap build in Gump has been failing for a while now. The
module depends on the Bouncastle JCE provider via
ReplicationTrustManager but its POM doesn't say so (this could be fixed
inside Gump but I don't want to 8-)
I guess that under "normal circumstamces" bcprov is pulled in as a
transitive dependency but to me it seems to be cleaner to explicitly
state the dependency.
Cheers
Stefan
Re: [apacheds] protocol-ldap's POM lacks dependency on bcprov
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2010-10-27, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Just added it (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1027963&view=rev)
thank you
Stefan
Re: [apacheds] protocol-ldap's POM lacks dependency on bcprov
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
> Hi,
>
> the protocol-ldap build in Gump has been failing for a while now. The
> module depends on the Bouncastle JCE provider via
> ReplicationTrustManager but its POM doesn't say so (this could be fixed
> inside Gump but I don't want to 8-)
>
> I guess that under "normal circumstamces" bcprov is pulled in as a
> transitive dependency but to me it seems to be cleaner to explicitly
> state the dependency.
My bad, we had the dependency in the dep manager in the parent pom, but
nothing tin protocol-ldap.
Just added it (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1027963&view=rev)
Thanks !
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: [apacheds] protocol-ldap's POM lacks dependency on bcprov
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
> Hi,
>
> the protocol-ldap build in Gump has been failing for a while now. The
> module depends on the Bouncastle JCE provider via
> ReplicationTrustManager but its POM doesn't say so (this could be fixed
> inside Gump but I don't want to 8-)
>
> I guess that under "normal circumstamces" bcprov is pulled in as a
> transitive dependency but to me it seems to be cleaner to explicitly
> state the dependency.
Hmmm... I don't get it : protocol-ldap has a parent pom where the bcprov
version is explicitely declared :
...
<bcprov.version>140</bcprov.version>
...
<dependency>
<groupId>bouncycastle</groupId>
<artifactId>bcprov-jdk15</artifactId>
<version>${bcprov.version}</version>
</dependency>
...
What's wrong, exactly ?
> Cheers
>
> Stefan
>
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com