Hi On 5/14/07, Bill.E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
Yes.
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?
We still have not done an official release of the .NET stuff so we have not yet run into this. But I imagine that we will need to place the private key in secure location that Apache committers can access.
Will the binaries released be strong named/signed?
If we do a binary release, yes.
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.
-- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
