Hi Nicko, > Does the private key form an integral part of the 'source'?
Of course not. But it is an integral part of the official build. Changing the key breaks upgradability between the "official" builds of <=1.2.9 and >=1.2.10. Many other libraries out there depend on log4net and have been in use for some years now (like log4net itself). Thus a new key not only breaks log4net (binary-) compatibility but also several other libraries. IMHO the question is rather academic for that reason. It is more a practical problem, forcing people to struggle with several libraries referencing incompatible versions of log4net. > I think this will be driven by our internal discussion on future strong name > key policy. I would love to see a final statement on your future sn policy. For now, a remark on the log4net homepage would help to at least make people aware of this problem. tx, Erich > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Carlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 5:03 PM > To: Log4NET User > Subject: Re: new public key for 1.2.10? > > Hi Nicko, > > Any answer on when the "unoffical" build of 1.2.10 will be > released with the same public key token as 1.2.9? It is > holding up a project that I am working on which uses > NHibernate (NHibernate uses 1.2.9). > > Thanks! > Sean > > > > On 6/21/06, Nicko Cadell < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Bob, > > It was not my intention to change the strong name key > for the 1.2.10 > release. Due to some misadventure the key has changed > between version > 1.2.9 and 1.2.10. This has the undesirable effect of > preventing binding > redirects between these version working. > > I am still investigating where my key management > procedures broke down. > But I think that it is now essential for log4net to > examine our policy > towards strong naming, especially as this is supposed > to be an open > source project. Does the private key form an integral > part of the > 'source'? It is not required to build an identically functional > assembly, but it is required to build an identical > binary replacement > assembly. > > At this point in time I think it is not possible to > remedy the situation > by producing official builds of the latest version with > the old strong > name, however it may be possible to make an unofficial > build with the > old key for compatibility purposes. I think this will > be driven by our > internal discussion on future strong name key policy. > > Regards, > Nicko > > ------------ > Nicko Cadell > log4net development > http://logging.apache.org/log4net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bob Hanson [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 13 June 2006 17:13 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: new public key for 1.2.10? > > > > According to discussion at > > http://forum.springframework.net/showthread.php?t=470, the > > public key has changed from version 1.2.9 to 1.2.10. > > > > Was this by design? > > > > > > > >
