I've been following this dicussion from the sidelines, and one idea that has occurred to me that may help, and should probably be addressed anyway, is having Gump produce its own public/private key pair for signing strong names for the assemblies. By using a separate key, you reduce the GAC problem to just other Gump builds, and if you can somehow guarantee a unique version number for Gump builds, you're home free. There is a tradeoff between how secure you're willing to keep the private key versus how easily a malicious or negligant user could break things, but that's no worse than the current situation.
While NAnt doesn't need to go into the GAC, and hence doesn't need a strong name, other components such as NUnit do, at least for now. So I think that sooner or later you're going to have to ask the question as to whether you want to keep using the project-specific private keys. (I believe NAnt and NUnit each provide their own, different public/private key files in their source trees.) I haven't really thought this through. I'm just tossing it out as a possible different direction to investigate. Gary ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click _______________________________________________ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
