New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

removing transitive dependencies from dependencies list #1547

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 24, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@pms1969
Contributor

pms1969 commented Mar 24, 2016

brings the dependency list in line with exactly what nuget produces (as far as I can tell).

@forki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@forki

forki Mar 24, 2016

Member

Do we really want that? Is it needed?

Member

forki commented Mar 24, 2016

Do we really want that? Is it needed?

@forki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@forki

forki Mar 24, 2016

Member

(I mean probably want that - but what are we breaking currrently?)

Member

forki commented Mar 24, 2016

(I mean probably want that - but what are we breaking currrently?)

@pms1969

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pms1969

pms1969 Mar 24, 2016

Contributor

I guess it's more of a completeness thing than anything else. it declutters the output, and makes the dependency list that is generated by paket the same as nuget.

in a project of any size, (and I have a few at work), the depency list is relatively large. a good chunk of these dependencies are transitive. it leads to larger lock files I guess, and I need to justify the difference to the people I work under ;-)

Contributor

pms1969 commented Mar 24, 2016

I guess it's more of a completeness thing than anything else. it declutters the output, and makes the dependency list that is generated by paket the same as nuget.

in a project of any size, (and I have a few at work), the depency list is relatively large. a good chunk of these dependencies are transitive. it leads to larger lock files I guess, and I need to justify the difference to the people I work under ;-)

@forki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@forki

forki Mar 24, 2016

Member

ok will look into it

Member

forki commented Mar 24, 2016

ok will look into it

@forki forki merged commit 4353cfa into fsprojects:master Mar 24, 2016

1 of 2 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr Waiting for AppVeyor build to complete
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

forki added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2016

forki added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2016

@forki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@forki

forki Mar 24, 2016

Member

Could you please review b014e55 and 11a4308? Thanks

Member

forki commented Mar 24, 2016

Could you please review b014e55 and 11a4308? Thanks

@pms1969

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pms1969

pms1969 Mar 24, 2016

Contributor

all looks good. just ran master against my solution here, and it worked as expected.

Contributor

pms1969 commented Mar 24, 2016

all looks good. just ran master against my solution here, and it worked as expected.

@forki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@forki

forki Mar 24, 2016

Member

Do we influence the packaged dlls with it? I mean for packages that don't use dependencies but bundle their stuff we still need to package all deps. Otherwise that would create a bug right?

Member

forki commented Mar 24, 2016

Do we influence the packaged dlls with it? I mean for packages that don't use dependencies but bundle their stuff we still need to package all deps. Otherwise that would create a bug right?

@pms1969

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pms1969

pms1969 Mar 24, 2016

Contributor

that code just has an impact on the dependencies list, not on the packaged dlls

Contributor

pms1969 commented Mar 24, 2016

that code just has an impact on the dependencies list, not on the packaged dlls

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment