lucenenet-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Removing signing of assemblies (starting in v4)
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:06:53 GMT
Yes, and this is why we are going to provide signed versions as downloads +
scripts to sign the sources, just not in the main distribution stream which
is nuget.

We will take a canary testing kind of approach where we will do a
pre-release of v4 and a bugfix release of v3 both usigned and see how much
people will complain.

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:

> +1 to Oren's point here
>
> Remember the signing dependency issue works both ways, there are lots of
> other projects that depend on Lucene.Net which do sign their dependencies
> and so changing whether the project is signed breaks upstream consumers of
> the library
>
> An unsigned assembly can happily depend on a signed assembly whereas the
> opposite is not true
>
> Regardless of how effective/valuable SN signing is we are unfortunately
> stuck with it in the .Net world and you will only get grief.
>
> My own project got rid of signing for a while and had to bring it back
> because we got too many user complaints about this.  For comparison my
> project has ~10k downloads on NuGet whereas Lucene.Net has ~500k so I
> would strongly suspect you will get far more user complaints far more
> quickly if you drop signing in future releases.
>
> Rob
>
>
> On 23/04/2014 08:11, "Oren Eini (Ayende Rahien)" <ayende@ayende.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm many corporate environment that is a big requirement
> >In a library like Lucene, where other people depend on it, a sign build is
> >important
> >On Apr 23, 2014 2:27 PM, "Petar Repac" <petar.repac@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There is a long discussion about SN here:
> >> https://nuget.codeplex.com/discussions/247827
> >>
> >> I'd suggest that even if decision is not to sign, there should be an
> >>easy
> >> way to get signed assemblies.
> >>
> >> Like:
> >> 1. clone repo (signing keys are publicly accessible in repository)
> >> 2. run BuildSigned.bat (or PowerShell script, Rake, ....)
> >> 3. c/p files from /build folder
> >>
> >> I stopped signing my assemblies long ago, but probably there still are
> >>many
> >> that still do
> >> and less obstacles in adopting Lucene.NET the better.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Petar Repac
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > All Lucene.NET assemblies are signed, aka strongly named.
> >> >
> >> > We are starting to run into problems with dependencies which not being
> >> > signed. What's becoming more common in the .NET world (OSS mainly) is
> >>to
> >> > stop signing assemblies because its
> >> > pretty<
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20105103/are-signed-net-assemblies-eve
> >>r-fully-verified-when-loaded-to-check-they-haven
> >> > >
> >> > much<
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1197133/anything-wrong-with-not-signin
> >>g-a-net-assembly
> >> > >
> >> > useless <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163583.aspx>
(in
> >>the
> >> > last link: What Strong Names Can't Do).
> >> >
> >> > Regardless of the argument about SN it seems to bring more fraction
> >>and
> >> > trouble than anything good, especially considering we are an
> >>open-source
> >> > library.
> >> >
> >> > Case in question, I'm moving to updating the spatial module and want
> >>to
> >> > fetch dependencies from nuget. While spatial4n is signed (so it can be
> >> used
> >> > from Lucene.NET), NTS+GeoAPI are not and don't appear to get signed
> >>any
> >> > time soon. Since signed assemblies cannot reference non-strongly-named
> >> > assemblies, I can't currently do that - not through nuget at least.
> >>This
> >> > introduces a lot of frustration and tons of fraction which I'd like to
> >> have
> >> > removed.
> >> >
> >> > Ideally I'd want to move to removing strong-naming from all Lucene.NET
> >> > assemblies (v4 and forward), and having a wiki page that describes why
> >> > signing is pointless and how to manually sign it if you insist.
> >> >
> >> > I can see 2 disadvantages for not signing, both of which I doubt
> >>really
> >> > matter nowadays and given our usage scenarios:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Deploy Lucene.NET to the GAC without further steps (non-signed
> >> > assemblies can be SN or ILMerged as part of the install process)
> >> >
> >> > 2. Signed assemblies / project won't be able to get Lucene.NET from
> >>nuget
> >> > directly because they'll have to sign it before referencing it. Or
> >>lose
> >> SN
> >> > themselves.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> >> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> >> > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> >> > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message