StrongNamed version of the assembly
See original GitHub issueIs your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
A codebase with a lot of use of InternalsVisibleTo
so all assemblies must be signed.
Describe the solution you’d like Either sign the final assembly or have a signed nuget version as some other libs do.
Describe alternatives you’ve considered Is not possible to load a non signed assembly from a signed assembly, at compile time at least…
Additional context
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 2 years ago
- Reactions:12
- Comments:8 (1 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Create and use strong-named assemblies
A strong name consists of the assembly's identity—its simple text name, version number, and culture information (if provided)—plus a public ...
Read more >Why use strong named assemblies?
Strong name protect the version lineage of an assembly. A strong name can ensure that no one is able to produce a subsequent...
Read more >Strong named assemblies — To sign or not to sign?
You can use different versions of the same assembly. ... Strong named assembly can only reference other strong named assemblies [link].
Read more >runtime/docs/project/strong-name-signing.md at main
All .NET Core assemblies are strong-named. We do this for two reasons: Compatibility. We want to maintain type identity with previous versions of...
Read more >NET Assembly FAQ – Part 3 – Strong Names and Signing
A strong name is a .NET assembly name combined with its version number and other information to uniquely identify the assembly.
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Main benefit is that users who have to use a strong named assembly can use yours. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/library-guidance/strong-naming
Until nobody is using it anymore I’d recommend to ship the package strongly named. It’s as easy as adding the .snk file to the repos and add a tag in the csproj.
+1 to @sebastienros’ comment.
@patriksvensson The
Spectre.Console
package also targets.NETStandard 2.0
, which means it’s designed to be useable to a .NET Framework application as well. It’s quite common for a .NET Framework application to be strong named, and thus it makes it unnecessarily hard to use this package for a .NET Framework application.In .NET Core world, there may not be benefit from the technical perspective, but there is also no harm to have it strong named. And for applications that still have to be strong named (e.g. PowerShell), it would also make it a lot easier to depend on
Spectre.Console
. So, overall, I think there is benefits to have this assembly strong named. Please re-consider doing this, thanks!