Skip to content
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

paket remove leaves indirect dependencies in lockfile #306

Closed
theimowski opened this issue Oct 28, 2014 · 4 comments
Closed

paket remove leaves indirect dependencies in lockfile #306

theimowski opened this issue Oct 28, 2014 · 4 comments

Comments

@theimowski
Copy link
Member

dependencies file:

source https://nuget.org/api/v2

nuget fake 3.0.2
nuget fsharp.data 2.0

lock file:

NUGET
  remote: https://nuget.org/api/v2
  specs:
    FAKE (3.0.2)
    FSharp.Data (2.0.0)
      Zlib.Portable (>= 1.9.2)
    Zlib.Portable (1.10.0)

after runinng paket remove nuget fsharp.data I get:
dependencies file:

source https://nuget.org/api/v2

nuget fake 3.0.2

lock file:

NUGET
  remote: https://nuget.org/api/v2
  specs:
    FAKE (3.0.2)
    Zlib.Portable (1.10.0)
@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 28, 2014

Mhm. That's bad. But I think I know how to fix. Thanks for reporting.
On Oct 28, 2014 7:33 PM, "Tomasz Heimowski" [email protected]
wrote:

dependencies file:

source https://nuget.org/api/v2

nuget fake 3.0.2
nuget fsharp.data 2.0

lock file:

NUGET
remote: https://nuget.org/api/v2
specs:
FAKE (3.0.2)
FSharp.Data (2.0.0)
Zlib.Portable (>= 1.9.2)
Zlib.Portable (1.10.0)

after runinng paket remove nuget fsharp.data I get:
dependencies file:

source https://nuget.org/api/v2

nuget fake 3.0.2

lock file:

NUGET
remote: https://nuget.org/api/v2
specs:
FAKE (3.0.2)
Zlib.Portable (1.10.0)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#306.

@theimowski
Copy link
Member Author

not sure if necessary, but maybe some logic from simplifier could be reused here

@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 28, 2014

Not needed. It's an easy fix. Will do tomorrow.
On Oct 28, 2014 10:01 PM, "Tomasz Heimowski" [email protected]
wrote:

not sure if necessary, but maybe some logic from simplifier could be
reused here


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#306 (comment).

@forki forki closed this as completed in 4981b8b Oct 29, 2014
@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 29, 2014

I think you might be right. simplify data could improve this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants