Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reference Mono.Cecil using a PackageReference #1001

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 1, 2017

Conversation

sharwell
Copy link
Contributor

@sharwell sharwell commented Dec 1, 2017

The current submodule and bundling approach causes problems for consumers of ICSharpCode.Decompiler due to the embedding of a "non-standard" build of Mono.Cecil.dll. This pull request modifies the references to use PackageReference instead, and declare a NuGet dependency on the Mono.Cecil package on NuGet.

For this pull request, I did not remove the submodule itself. It's possible that developers have local branches in the submodule and would like to continue working with those branches, so I decided to leave that decision for a future pull request.

This pull request is very similar to #998. Specific differences are:

  1. This pull request leaves the cecil submodule in place, and updates the commit reference to match the commit we're referencing as a NuGet package
  2. This pull request leverages transitive <PackageReference> in a few places, so there are fewer explicit references to Mono.Cecil
  3. This pull request updates the NuGet package specification for ICSharpCode.Decompiler to declare the dependency on Mono.Cecil

@siegfriedpammer
Copy link
Member

@sharwell did you see #998?

@sharwell
Copy link
Contributor Author

sharwell commented Dec 1, 2017

@siegfriedpammer Yes, the differences as compared to #998 are listed above. This pull request is a slightly different approach to the same goal.

@siegfriedpammer siegfriedpammer merged commit 3acb21b into icsharpcode:master Dec 1, 2017
@sharwell sharwell deleted the cecil-packagereference branch December 1, 2017 21:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants