lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Vesse <rve...@dotnetrdf.org>
Subject Re: Removing signing of assemblies (starting in v4)
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:13:10 GMT
+1 to Oren's point here

Remember the signing dependency issue works both ways, there are lots of
other projects that depend on Lucene.Net which do sign their dependencies
and so changing whether the project is signed breaks upstream consumers of
the library

An unsigned assembly can happily depend on a signed assembly whereas the
opposite is not true

Regardless of how effective/valuable SN signing is we are unfortunately
stuck with it in the .Net world and you will only get grief.

My own project got rid of signing for a while and had to bring it back
because we got too many user complaints about this.  For comparison my
project has ~10k downloads on NuGet whereas Lucene.Net has ~500k so I
would strongly suspect you will get far more user complaints far more
quickly if you drop signing in future releases.

Rob


On 23/04/2014 08:11, "Oren Eini (Ayende Rahien)" <ayende@ayende.com> wrote:

>I'm many corporate environment that is a big requirement
>In a library like Lucene, where other people depend on it, a sign build is
>important
>On Apr 23, 2014 2:27 PM, "Petar Repac" <petar.repac@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a long discussion about SN here:
>> https://nuget.codeplex.com/discussions/247827
>>
>> I'd suggest that even if decision is not to sign, there should be an
>>easy
>> way to get signed assemblies.
>>
>> Like:
>> 1. clone repo (signing keys are publicly accessible in repository)
>> 2. run BuildSigned.bat (or PowerShell script, Rake, ....)
>> 3. c/p files from /build folder
>>
>> I stopped signing my assemblies long ago, but probably there still are
>>many
>> that still do
>> and less obstacles in adopting Lucene.NET the better.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Petar Repac
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > All Lucene.NET assemblies are signed, aka strongly named.
>> >
>> > We are starting to run into problems with dependencies which not being
>> > signed. What's becoming more common in the .NET world (OSS mainly) is
>>to
>> > stop signing assemblies because its
>> > pretty<
>> >
>> 
>>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20105103/are-signed-net-assemblies-eve
>>r-fully-verified-when-loaded-to-check-they-haven
>> > >
>> > much<
>> >
>> 
>>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1197133/anything-wrong-with-not-signin
>>g-a-net-assembly
>> > >
>> > useless <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163583.aspx> (in
>>the
>> > last link: What Strong Names Can't Do).
>> >
>> > Regardless of the argument about SN it seems to bring more fraction
>>and
>> > trouble than anything good, especially considering we are an
>>open-source
>> > library.
>> >
>> > Case in question, I'm moving to updating the spatial module and want
>>to
>> > fetch dependencies from nuget. While spatial4n is signed (so it can be
>> used
>> > from Lucene.NET), NTS+GeoAPI are not and don't appear to get signed
>>any
>> > time soon. Since signed assemblies cannot reference non-strongly-named
>> > assemblies, I can't currently do that - not through nuget at least.
>>This
>> > introduces a lot of frustration and tons of fraction which I'd like to
>> have
>> > removed.
>> >
>> > Ideally I'd want to move to removing strong-naming from all Lucene.NET
>> > assemblies (v4 and forward), and having a wiki page that describes why
>> > signing is pointless and how to manually sign it if you insist.
>> >
>> > I can see 2 disadvantages for not signing, both of which I doubt
>>really
>> > matter nowadays and given our usage scenarios:
>> >
>> > 1. Deploy Lucene.NET to the GAC without further steps (non-signed
>> > assemblies can be SN or ILMerged as part of the install process)
>> >
>> > 2. Signed assemblies / project won't be able to get Lucene.NET from
>>nuget
>> > directly because they'll have to sign it before referencing it. Or
>>lose
>> SN
>> > themselves.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
>> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
>> > Freelance Developer & Consultant
>> > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
>> >
>>





Mime
View raw message