On Oct 17, 12:47 pm, "Vadym Stetsiak" <vadm***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, Abhishek!
>
> IMO the purpose of assembly signing is to remove the possibility to modify
> the app by other people.
> Since your application consists of many dlls - removing one dll means that
> other dlls have to be rebuild and signed again.
>
> A solutions can be an installer application that will do the patch thus
> substitute all the dlls. Also an application has to be installed by the
> installer.
> Another way is not to signe application dlls (not applicable).
> --
> With best regards, Vadym Stetsiak.
> Blog:http://vadmyst.blogspot.com
>
> You wrote  on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:21:51 -0700:
>
>  A> Hi,
>
>  A> I am using .NET framework 2.0 and am facing a problem with assembly
>  A> versioning.
>
>  A> We have a many dlls which we ship as an application. Now all these
>  A> dlls are packaged and shipped as independent units. These dlls may or
>  A> may not depend on each other however 1 thing which is for sure is
>  A> that all the dlls depend on a common dll.
>
>  A> So to make it more clear the scenario is i have dll1, dll2,
>  A> dllCommon.
>  A> Now dll1 and dll2 depends on dllCommon. The AssemlblyVersionInfo we
>  A> have set for all these dlls is 1.5.*.* . Now with each build we build
>  A> dllCommmon, dll2 and dll1 in the same order.
>  A> Once we ship the application we may have to patch any 1 of these dlls
>  A> individually. However when we try to do that the things break because
>  A> of the way runtime probes the signed dlls. (We've all of them signed
>  A> by a key). So the problem now is that even if i have to patch
>  A> dllCommon i have to ship dll1 and dll2 as well which is definitely
>  A> not possible for us.
>  A> I am sure there's a solution out there however i am not able to find
>  A> it. Any comments/help would be great inputs for me.
>
>  A> Thanks, Abhishek

> On Oct 17, 12:47 pm, "Vadym Stetsiak" <vadm***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hello, Abhishek!
>
> > IMO the purpose of assembly signing is to remove the possibility to modify
> > the app by other people.
> > Since your application consists of many dlls - removing one dll means that
> > other dlls have to be rebuild and signed again.
>
> > A solutions can be an installer application that will do the patch thus
> > substitute all the dlls. Also an application has to be installed by the
> > installer.
> > Another way is not to signe application dlls (not applicable).
> > --
> > With best regards, Vadym Stetsiak.
> > Blog:http://vadmyst.blogspot.com
>
> > You wrote  on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:21:51 -0700:
>
> >  A> Hi,
>
> >  A> I am using .NET framework 2.0 and am facing a problem with assembly
> >  A> versioning.
>
> >  A> We have a many dlls which we ship as an application. Now all these
> >  A> dlls are packaged and shipped as independent units. These dlls may or
> >  A> may not depend on each other however 1 thing which is for sure is
> >  A> that all the dlls depend on a common dll.
>
> >  A> So to make it more clear the scenario is i have dll1, dll2,
> >  A> dllCommon.
> >  A> Now dll1 and dll2 depends on dllCommon. The AssemlblyVersionInfo we
> >  A> have set for all these dlls is 1.5.*.* . Now with each build we build
> >  A> dllCommmon, dll2 and dll1 in the same order.
> >  A> Once we ship the application we may have to patch any 1 of these dlls
> >  A> individually. However when we try to do that the things break because
> >  A> of the way runtime probes the signed dlls. (We've all of them signed
> >  A> by a key). So the problem now is that even if i have to patch
> >  A> dllCommon i have to ship dll1 and dll2 as well which is definitely
> >  A> not possible for us.
> >  A> I am sure there's a solution out there however i am not able to find
> >  A> it. Any comments/help would be great inputs for me.
>
> >  A> Thanks, Abhishek
>
> Hi Vadyam
>
> Definitely this is doable if i ship all the dlls however the issue
> here is that all these dlls would be built by different team and a
> subset would then shipped to customers depending on there
> requirements.
> Now we can't write a installer for each customer. Additionaly it is
> logically incorrect to ship all the dlls if i have to patch only
> dll1.
>
> Any other ideas ?
>
> ~Abhishek