Closed mfeingol closed 4 years ago
Thanks for the pull request!
Would you be interested in being added to the project as a maintainer?
Hi, Simon. Thanks for the offer, and sure, that would be great. If there's an occasional PR for the project, I wouldn't mind taking a look.
My interest in Geo is mainly as a user. I have a travel planning app that uses it quite a bit for GPX reading/writing, so that's where my main focus lies.
What would it take to get a fresh NuGet package released through your official channel?
@sibartlett: will you be accepting this PR and updating the NuGet package?
Thanks!
I've updated this PR to include one additional fix in fd8f01f
.
@sibartlett: let me know what you'd like to do with this PR.
Any chance that this will be merged soon? 🙂
Also, can I make a suggestion/request? Guidance is to not target only .NET Standard 1.x only, as it results in very large dependency graphs for frameworks that support .NET Standard 2.0. You can see the full guidance here, but to save you some reading, I suggest changing this line:
<TargetFramework>netstandard1.4</TargetFramework>
with this (note the s
on TargetFrameworks
):
<TargetFrameworks>netstandard1.4;netstandard2.0;net461;net472</TargetFrameworks>
This gives you the best of all worlds - wide compatibility thanks to .NET Standard 1.x, a good experience for .NET Core apps, and avoids library issues caused by the .NET Framework 4.6.1 compatibility shim!
@andrewlock: thanks for the note. I updated the target frameworks and bumped the version.
As for when this will be merged... that's a question for @sibartlett. :-)
I would also be interested in whether this will be released - I was just about to have a crack at it myself. I can reference the package from a .NET Core 2.2 project but get a shed load of compiler warnings (even though it works!).
Sorry everyone for my lack of activity here. I do want to get this merged, I haven’t had all that much free time.
This isn’t a quick thing for me to do, I haven’t done much .NET in the past 5 years, so will need to get reacquainted with things.
I did mention adding other maintainers would help, but I still need to connect my NuGet account to a Microsoft account. I will try and do that this week, then maybe I can add some people to the project.
@sibartlett: glad to hear, thanks. Let me know if you have any questions about anything.
Merged in: 058e413574ffe8f4c958536783a4ab81283b7c70
All the pull requests have been merged.
I wil try and figure out the NuGet situation within the next week.
Sorry, that’s it’s been taking me a while to get around to doing this. I’m now actively working to get the Nuget package republished.
I’ve been trying to understand changes around build targets and NuGet since I last used .NET several years ago.
I’m trying to clean the project files up, to better understand things.
Would it be problematic if I only publish a .NET standard 2.0 version?
I understand that this PR updated the project to 1.4, but i don’t understand how the XML stuff was working? Doesn’t seem the XML classes we are using, are available in .NET standard 1.4?
@sibartlett .NET Standard 2.0 won't be an issue, it's compatible with .NET Core 2 and up.
@sibartlett: for what it's worth, I'm able to build multitargeted Geo for 1.4 and 2.0 without any build problems here.
Thanks for the reply @mfeingol
How do you get System.Xml.Serialization
namespace to compile in .NET Standard 1.4?
For instance, the official documentation states that XmlElementAttribute
is not available in 1.4
How do you get System.Xml.Serialization namespace to compile in .NET Standard 1.4?
System.Xml.XmlSerializer NuGet package.
Ahhh... sorry, me being dumb 😄
I'm just trying things with a brand new .csproj - and I missed that part.
I spent a few hours figuring things out. I cleaned up the solution a bit too; updated the .csproj files, removed the .nuspec files, etc.
The NuGet package is finally updated, published as version 0.20.0.
Thanks, a lot, @sibartlett!
Thanks from NW UK as well @sibartlett, much appreciated! I'll do what I can to help contirb in the future.
Commits largely speak for themselves. The gist is: