This approach didn't work out as well as I hoped. I can't use the 'provided' scope for the GAC without using a custom resolver. We will have to push all GAC assembly to the 'system' scope.
Shane On Dec 27, 2007 11:20 PM, Evan Worley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This seems ok to me, and also seems to require very little work on the > NMaven side to support assembly resolution from the GAC. > > -Evan > > On Dec 27, 2007 8:02 PM, Shane Isbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm thinking about requiring GAC installed assemblies to have either > > provided or system scope. If the assembly follows versionless filenames, > > then it can use provided scope. If the assembly has a version in the > file > > name (standard NMaven generated assembly), then it would be required to > > use > > a system scope and specify the assembly path. All the GAC installed > > assemblies would also have an implicit runtime scope, due to the nature > of > > the CLR and its loading rules. > > > > This setup would allow users that require versionless assemblies to > first > > do > > a gac install and then have the assembly available for compilation. > > Thoughts? > > > > Shane > > >
