Agreed, but it does make it difficult to build the code locally with strong named assemblies for use in the GAC. Do you suggest just generating a new one locally for convienience sake?
This brings up a small issue with this form of distributed code development. I haven't been involved with building much open source projects. What is the general rule for handling this kind of thing? Will the binaries released be strong named/signed? thanks in advance bille Hiram Chirino wrote: > > It does not make sense to include the file since that is a private > key. If the private key was publicly accessible, then anybody to > could sign a release and that would not be saying much would it? > > On 5/10/07, Bill.E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> the .net build from yesterday did not include activemq-dotnet.snk strong >> name >> file >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Strong-name-key-file-missing-tf3725224s2354.html#a10425150 >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Hiram > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Strong-name-key-file-missing-tf3725224s2354.html#a10603731 Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
