Unusual nuspec breaks Paket resolution

[pdfforge]

The nuspec contains a very interesting part:

      <group targetFramework=".NETStandard1.3">
        <dependency id="Google.Apis" version="1.16.0" />
        <dependency id="Google.Apis.Auth" version="1.16.0" />
      </group>
      <group targetFramework=".NETPortable0.0-Profile259">
        <dependency id="Google.Apis" version="1.16.0" />
        <dependency id="Google.Apis.Auth" version="1.16.0" />
      </group>
      <group targetFramework=".NETPortable0.0-Profile328">
        <dependency id="Google.Apis" version="[1.10.0]" />
        <dependency id="Google.Apis.Auth" version="[1.10.0]" />
      </group>

Here, the Google.Apis is referenced with version 1.16 and 1.10. The package manager Paket does not understand this way of defining the deps (and to me it looks non-compliant as well) and goes for 1.10 instead 1.16.

Is there are valid condition where 1.10 should be referenced here?

[jskeet]

I'm not sure what's non-compliant about it - there are different dependency versions for different target frameworks, basically. Is that what Paket doesn't like, or is it the use of square brackets in the 1.10.0 specification?

@chrisdunelm can no doubt shed more light, but I suspect the Profile328 version is pinned to 1.10.0 because that's when we dropped support for Silverlight.

[jskeet]

Is this Paket issue relevant? Looks like it might be...

[chrisdunelm]

@pdfforge Which nuspec file is this?

If I remember correctly, Profile328 is pinned to 1.10.0 because we dropped support for .NET4.0 in 1.11+

[pdfforge]

@jskeet: The Paket issue is not relevant here, as it concerns the "Pack" command to actually build packages and not for package resolution.

I thought that the definitions were strange because of the profile name that is used, but after some further research, I have found that they are defined (and can be seen here: http://blog.stephencleary.com/2012/05/framework-profiles-in-net.html)

I have not seen that way of defining the target framework, but as it looks completely valid, I would close this ticket and further investigate with the guys from Paket.

Thanks for the nice and quick replies here!