|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
strong name errorfollowing error (which I see reported by others): Use command line option '/keyfile' or appropriate project settings instead of 'AssemblyKeyFile' For my purposes, strong names in released apps is required as the assemblies are run from a remote machine by the client. I am looking for a sanity check that I am approaching this the correct way in VS 2005. Formerly, I had the following code in a linked assembly infor file for all my projects: #if !DEBUG [assembly: AssemblyDelaySign(true)] [assembly: AssemblyKeyFile(@"..\..\..\ESD_PUBLIC.SNK")] #else [assembly: AssemblyDelaySign(false)] [assembly: AssemblyKeyFile("")] #endif so that when compiling in debug mode (during development) I did not sign at all. Then when cut for release, Iwoudl delay sign as a manual step before copying to the deployment location. In VS 2005, it appears to me that I know longer have the ability to conditionally sign the assemblies. If that is wrong, please jump in right here...!!!! Otherwise, as I see, I must use the Project Properties (signing screen) at compile time to overcome the error received during the relase mode compile. But than then causes a different problem when doing the debug mode compile, as it appears the project properties overrule the attribute settings in the assembly info file. That leaves me believing I no longer can conditionally sign, and I should just go ahead and specify my pubpriv.snk file in the signing screen, and disable delayed signing. On the upside, my deployment reduces one step (not needing to manually sign). Previously I conditionally signed so that I would not accidently place incomplete/unfinshed code into the production area...like a programmer would ever do that!!! Other than having to be careful not to place signed DEBUG code into the production area, is there something else I should be on the watch for??? So how am I doing thus far....??? Am I about to screw myself up and not yet see it coming?!?!? And I am open to suggestions, too. Thank you in advance. "Tom" <T**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message Conditionally signing of assemblies is still possible, even when specifying news:23E74076-49CE-4FAB-9077-CF46C1708832@microsoft.com... > In VS 2005, it appears to me that I know longer have the ability to > conditionally sign the assemblies. If that is wrong, please jump in right > here...!!!! signing behaviour via the project properties. However, the UI does not support the full flexibility required for this, so you'll need to do a bit of manual editing of the build properties. Try this... 1. Remove all assembly-level attributes previously used to specify signing behaviour. 2. Specify your preferred signing behaviour for release builds using the project properties editor then save your project. 3. In the solution explorer within VStudio, right-click the node for your project, then select "Unload Project" from the context menu. 4. Once the project is unloaded, right-click the project node again, and select the "Edit <your project>.csproj" item from the context menu. 5. Manually edit the csproj file to move the SignAssembly and AssemblyOriginatorKeyFile nodes from the default property group to the release property group. 6. Save the file then reload the project from the project context menu. > Other than having to be careful not to place signed DEBUG code into the Personally, I would be quite concerned about deploying signed assemblies > production area, is there something else I should be on the watch for??? > So > how am I doing thus far....??? Am I about to screw myself up and not yet > see > it coming?!?!? when most (or all?) testing was performed on their unsigned counterparts. Is there some particular reason you are avoiding use of delay signing for your debug assemblies? If you are concerned about the risks exposed by verification skip entries, you might want to consider using the new test key signing functionality available in fx 2.0. (See http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/07/CLRInsideOut/default.aspx for an overview and http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnfa/archive/2005/10/24/484170.aspx for more details.) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||