Does Nuget really support .NET 1.1?

Feb 2, 2011 at 2:25 AM

This page mentions .NET 1.1 during the discussion of how to add package support for multiple versions of .NET.

http://nuget.codeplex.com/documentation?title=Creating%20a%20Package

But as of 2/1/2011 there are no packages currently tagged as supporting .NET 1.x. And the Library Package Manager requires VS 2010, which doesn't support .NET 1.x.

So is this just a documentation mistake? Or is there some way to do it with the command line tool only?

Feb 2, 2011 at 3:18 AM

Yes it does, but you've pointed out something important. It's possible, just not plausible because the ide tool requires VS2010. It would be a very manual scenario unless someone writes a client that would support this idea.

____
Rob
"Be passionate in all you do"

http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynolds
http://ferventcoder.com
http://twitter.com/ferventcoder

Coordinator
Feb 2, 2011 at 5:16 AM

Well the NuGet.exe can fit the bill http://blog.davidebbo.com/2011/01/installing-nuget-packages-directly-from.html

It won’t modify your 1.1 project, but it can deploy 1.1 libraries that you can then add reference to. Much like how the original Nu command line worked.

Sharp Develop comes close as I think it supports .NET 2.0 and above, but have dropped support for 1.1 in their more recent builds. http://community.sharpdevelop.net/blogs/mattward/archive/2011/01/23/NuGetSupportInSharpDevelop.aspx

Are you really stuck on .NET 1.1? Seems like a good time to upgrade. J

Feb 2, 2011 at 5:36 AM

I didn't know this was in there yet...awesome... :D

____
Rob
"Be passionate in all you do"

http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynolds
http://ferventcoder.com
http://twitter.com/ferventcoder

Coordinator
Feb 2, 2011 at 5:41 AM

It’s in their alpha build of 4.1. I just tried it out and it’s pretty nice. Only problem was when I tried to run my project using F5, it crashed. ;)

Such is the razor edge of alpha software. :P

Feb 2, 2011 at 11:53 AM
Haacked wrote:

Are you really stuck on .NET 1.1? Seems like a good time to upgrade. J

 

I have a few libraries that are built for 1.1, and I have customers that are still on 1.1. Trust me, I encourage them to upgrade so often they are probably tired of hearing me say it!

But if the EXE isn't going to modify the project file, I don't think it's worth the effort to create the package. Too bad, the 1.1 version is the one that could have benefited the most from the project modification.

Feb 2, 2011 at 1:34 PM

If we could provide an option for short names (just the lib name minus the version), then upgrading becomes a little easier because you won't have to redirect your references. Would that be beneficial?

____
Rob
"Be passionate in all you do"

http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynolds
http://ferventcoder.com
http://twitter.com/ferventcoder

Feb 2, 2011 at 2:39 PM

I'm not sure what you mean, to upgrade them to a newer version of .NET? The one client I am thinking of hasn't moved because of "black box" dependencies (DLLs which they license but do not own or have the source code for), and they aren't willing to invest in a re-engineering cycle to get rid of those dependencies. At least, I haven't been able to convince them... but perhaps that is just poor salesmanship on my part.  :-(

But I was thinking more of just helping others to add my library to .NET 1.1 based projects. The .NET 2.0 version is feature and syntax-compatible and provides an easy upgrade path. I guess if you were starting a project today, you probably wouldn't do it in VS2003 and .NET 1.1!

So perhaps I am just getting caught up in the excitement of creating new packages, and there really isn't a need.

Feb 2, 2011 at 2:45 PM
Imagine you add a reference to packages/castle.windsor.2.5.1.0/castle.windsor.dll
Then you run nuget.exe to upgrade. Now you have packages/castle.windsor.2.5.2.0/castle.windsor.dll

You have to go remove the old from the project files and add the new.

With a short name like packages/castle.windsor/castle.windsor.dll you only have to add the reference once. When you go to upgrade, it will put the new dll in the same location.

It doesn't help much with the initial referencing, but it sure helps with upgrades. :D
____
Rob
"Be passionate in all you do"

http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynolds
http://ferventcoder.com
http://twitter.com/ferventcoder


On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:39 AM, mgnoonan <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: mgnoonan

I'm not sure what you mean, to upgrade them to a newer version of .NET? The one client I am thinking of hasn't moved because of "black box" dependencies (DLLs which they license but do not own or have the source code for), and they aren't willing to invest in a re-engineering cycle to get rid of those dependencies. At least, I haven't been able to convince them... but perhaps that is just poor salesmanship on my part. :-(

But I was thinking more of just helping others to add my library to .NET 1.1 based projects. The .NET 2.0 version is feature and syntax-compatible and provides an easy upgrade path. I guess if you were starting a project today, you probably wouldn't do it in VS2003 and .NET 1.1!

So perhaps I am just getting caught up in the excitement of creating new packages, and there really isn't a need.

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (nuget@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email nuget@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com


Feb 2, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Ah, I see what you mean now. Sounds reasonable, maybe as a command line switch so you can keep both methods?

As for the 1.1 support, you guys have pretty much talked me out of it, so I hereby withdraw the question!

--Matt

Coordinator
Feb 2, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Have you tried running those 1.1 libraries on .NET 2.0 and above? The .NET Framework tries to maintain tight back compat so they might work.

Feb 2, 2011 at 6:19 PM
Edited Feb 2, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Yes, mostly with success. But there are some critical ones that still fail and they are holding up a complete conversion, and so... they... do... nothing... 

It's very frustrating.