search

MatthewKing / DeviceId

A simple library providing functionality to generate a 'device ID' that can be used to uniquely identify a computer.
MIT License
729 stars 118 forks source link

Referenced assembly 'DeviceId' does not have a strong name #5

Closed viktorfilim closed 4 years ago

viktorfilim commented 5 years ago

Referenced assembly 'DeviceId' does not have a strong name

Can you sign the package so it can be used in a project where all the assemblies are signed?

mylemans commented 5 years ago

https://www.pedrolamas.com/2016/03/01/still-strong-naming-your-assemblies-you-do-know-its-2016-right/

You can always sign it yourself, potentially running in the stated issue. Imho it is a bit pointless these days.

See the answer @ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/331520/how-to-fix-referenced-assembly-does-not-have-a-strong-name-error for that

viktorfilim commented 5 years ago

I know i can sign it myself. but after every update i need to resign it. It would be a lot better if the package came already signed. And i know it is pointless. But the app is old and the client wants it signed. So what ca we do?

viktorfilim commented 5 years ago

Also => https://www.pedrolamas.com/2018/09/11/start-strong-naming-your-assemblies/

mylemans commented 5 years ago

Well be sure to read up on this too: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/master/docs/project/strong-name-signing.md :P

It is stated there public libraries should sign, but then followed by a list with the potential issues.

I'm not saying they shouldn't release a signed version, take note that I did point you to a solution that you could do yourself now if the non signed thing was a blocking issue for you :)

MatthewKing commented 5 years ago

Hey folks. Thanks for the discussion.

I've been a bit conflicted about strong naming this library in the past. Generally I'm against strong naming, but obviously this library gets used in a lot of enterprise software environments where strong naming is used, and so strong naming this library would help developers who are using it in that context. As a result, I'm open to the idea.

I've got some plans for a new major version release with a couple of changes to the public API and a few new features. I'll consider strong naming that next release. And hopefully the technique linked by @mylemans is enough for everyone using the existing versions.

Welchen commented 4 years ago

Any chance of this strong naming happening?

MatthewKing commented 4 years ago

I've got a new release planned in the next few days. I will probably bite the bullet and strong name it.