logging-log4net-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Compiling log4net with strong name and 3rd party dependencies
Date Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:00:17 GMT

On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:16 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> 
> Right now I'd lean towards making breaking changes for a 1.3.x line of
> releases and using the new key there, I'm not sure whether signing those
> with the old key would be useful at all.

The following email describes a situation where a new log4net signed with the existing key
would be very handy. We'd need to nuance the message so that most people who don't have a
need for the drop in compatible old-key signed assemblies link against the new key signed
binaries.

If we are disclosing the a common unsecret key, then the need to address every platform nuance
is much reduced and we can just direct someone who needs a build for a specific variant of
.NET or Mono to build it themselves.

It may be premature, but if someone wants to up some sort of poll to determine which variants
to try to support and test, please take the initiative.




On Aug 9, 2011, at 12:27 AM, Lee Chun Kit wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Johannes Gustafsson <johannesgu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> There are a few bugfixes in the trunk that I need and since there has been no new release
for a very long time, I tried to compile it myself. I created a key and have successfully
compiled it with no problems. However, I have quite a few 3rd party dependencies that themselves
are dependent on log4net. These dependencies can't find load the new assembly that I have
created because they require that it is signed with a key that I dont have access to. So this
means that I can't use my own version of log4net without recompiling all my dependencies.
> 
> Do you have any suggestions to how I can solve this?
> 
> Regards,
> /Johannes
> 
> If your 3rd party dependencies don't require the bug fixes, you could maintain two different
references. Just a suggestion.


Mime
View raw message