2

Closed

NuGet adds binding redirects for WP7/SL, which don't support them

description

From John Sheehan on Twitter (https://twitter.com/#!/johnsheehan/status/166957459532038145):

nuget is adding assembly redirects in WP7/SL projects, which don't support them.

It's not clear to me what we need to do here yet (do SN-signed asms work without the binding redirects?). We need to investigate, see if there is anything we can do in the short term to make this easier.

No files are attached

Closed May 8 at 6:02 PM by CodePlexAdmin
Bulk resetting Issues that were moved to Fixed from Closed due to CodePlex bug.

comments

pranavkm wrote May 4 at 12:28 AM

Fixed in changeset 718496365dc9

shawnoster wrote Feb 15 at 11:54 PM

I'm glad to see this fixed, I run into this all the time using the RestSharp library which uses JSON.NET which until the last version was strong-named. Binding redirects were the proposed fix and that's all well and good until you're in SL or WP7 which doesn't support the feature and now my project is cluttered with a useless file. Please don't put them there, do not want.

Thank you for this fix, it is NOT pointless.

dotnetjunky wrote Feb 10 at 11:59 PM

I don't get it. What are you unhappy about? Why is it an unnecessary fix? If adding binding redirect doesn't solve the problem what version mismatch, then we'd better not add it.

pranavkm wrote Feb 10 at 10:38 PM

:( Don't check in things when they are still being discussed. I'm still entirely unhappy taking an unnecessary fix like this.

dotnetjunky wrote Feb 10 at 9:52 PM

Fixed in changeset f5b8df5c8b2b

Haacked wrote Feb 10 at 5:55 PM

Yeah, I'm not sure I see the point of this fix. If we're in a situation where you need binding redirects, not having binding redirects means the libraries won't work, right? And having the binding redirects on these platforms doesn't help either because they're not supported. So you're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Am I missing something? Is there ever a situation where not adding binding redirects makes this work?

pranavkm wrote Feb 10 at 4:01 PM

We should just tell people not to strong name SL\Wp7 assemblies. It seems like unnecessary cruft to try and handle a scenario like this in our code.

dotnetjunky wrote Feb 8 at 10:23 PM

Sure.

JeffHandley wrote Feb 8 at 9:51 PM

@dotnetjunky Since you're making another binding redirect change, do you want to go ahead and tackle this one too?

dotnetjunky wrote Feb 7 at 7:04 PM

SL assemblies should not signed at all. There is no benefit of doing so.

pranavkm wrote Feb 7 at 7:02 PM

Can SL\WP7 binaries be GACed at all?

johnsheehan wrote Feb 7 at 6:05 PM

The projects still seem to build with them there, but it's annoying, unnecessary clutter.

Sign in to add a comment