Compilation fails for .NET Framework 1.x due to MySqlErrorLog

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?

1. On a computer with .NET Framework 1.x installed, check out ELMAH 
release branch 1.2:
   http://elmah.googlecode.com/svn/branches/RB-1.2/
2. Open a Command Prompt and CD to the working copy.
3. Run buildall.cmd in the root of the working copy.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

Expected compilation to succeed. Instead it produces the following error:

Microsoft (R) Visual C# .NET Compiler version 7.10.6001.4
for Microsoft (R) .NET Framework version 1.1.4322
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 2001-2002. All rights reserved.

src\Elmah\MySqlErrorLog.cs(256,24): error CS0106: The modifier 'static' is 
not valid for this item

Original issue reported on code.google.com by azizatif on 9 Jan 2010 at 7:30

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I made sure it wasn't part of the 1.1/2003 solution because MySQL didn't 
provide support for 1.x 
frmeworks that was needed for ELMAH to function. Was this added to the 2003 
solution by somebody 
else?

Original comment by nberardi on 10 Jan 2010 at 12:48

• Changed state: NeedsInfo

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The build command script (build.cmd in the root) does a recursive compile of C# 
files irrespective of the 
what's in the solution files. There's a separate build script under 
src/Solutions that builds via the solution 
files. This issue comes up with the former when building on a machine with .NET 
Framework 1.x 
installed.  

Original comment by azizatif on 10 Jan 2010 at 3:53

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I resolved this issue by wrapping it in a #if !NET_1_0 && !NET_1_1 pre 
compiler.  
Before I close this issue can somebody else confirm that no more issues are 
present.

Original comment by nberardi on 10 Jan 2010 at 8:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Also I apologize for this issue, I haven't had .NET 1.x installed on my machine 
in over 
5 years.  I have corrected the issue now.  Thanks for reporting this and giving 
me a 
chance to fix it.

Original comment by nberardi on 10 Jan 2010 at 8:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

If you post the patch here as an attachment to a comment then I can test it on 
my end 
and confirm that there are no further issues.

Original comment by azizatif on 10 Jan 2010 at 8:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I tested it on my end with 1.1 and checked it in to the branch.  Was that the 
wrong 
thing to do?

Original comment by nberardi on 10 Jan 2010 at 9:27

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Nope, that was perfectly fine. I thought you were looking someone to confirm 
the change 
works. I think r699 has addressed this issue so we can close it as fixed. 
Thanks for 
the quick turnarounds.

Original comment by azizatif on 10 Jan 2010 at 10:52

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by nberardi on 10 Jan 2010 at 11:08

• Changed state: Fixed