This is exactly what I need. IMHO, By not having access to the private key, log4net might as well be closed source since the ability to build it yourself is more or less gone.
/Johannes 2011/8/12 Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org> > > On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:16 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > > > Right now I'd lean towards making breaking changes for a 1.3.x line of > > releases and using the new key there, I'm not sure whether signing those > > with the old key would be useful at all. > > The following email describes a situation where a new log4net signed with > the existing key would be very handy. We'd need to nuance the message so > that most people who don't have a need for the drop in compatible old-key > signed assemblies link against the new key signed binaries. > > If we are disclosing the a common unsecret key, then the need to address > every platform nuance is much reduced and we can just direct someone who > needs a build for a specific variant of .NET or Mono to build it themselves. > > It may be premature, but if someone wants to up some sort of poll to > determine which variants to try to support and test, please take the > initiative. > > > > > On Aug 9, 2011, at 12:27 AM, Lee Chun Kit wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Johannes Gustafsson < > johanne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > There are a few bugfixes in the trunk that I need and since there has > been no new release for a very long time, I tried to compile it myself. I > created a key and have successfully compiled it with no problems. However, I > have quite a few 3rd party dependencies that themselves are dependent on > log4net. These dependencies can't find load the new assembly that I have > created because they require that it is signed with a key that I dont have > access to. So this means that I can't use my own version of log4net without > recompiling all my dependencies. > > > > Do you have any suggestions to how I can solve this? > > > > Regards, > > /Johannes > > > > If your 3rd party dependencies don't require the bug fixes, you could > maintain two different references. Just a suggestion. > >
