-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
Add a package dependency from Microsoft.AspNetCore.{App,All} => NETCore.App #1256
Comments
I forget the issue we ran into originally, but it may have been resolved. A few things we would want to check are:
|
Instead of adding a package dependency, why wouldn't we just have two separate implicit package references? |
We want to avoid a mismatch of the base runtime and the upper layers. AspNetCore.App 2.1.3, the sharedfx, is built to expect NETCore.App 2.1.3. The package graph (and the versions they bring) should reflect that. |
It looks like there may be one side effect. The .deps.json generation produces a slightly difference result when NETCore.App is transitive. When you have NETCore.App and AspNetCore.App as direct deps, you get.
But with only AspNetCore.App as the top-level dep and NETCore.App is transitive, you get, "Microsoft.NETCore.App/2.1.3-servicing-26708-02": {
"dependencies": {
"Microsoft.NETCore.DotNetHostPolicy": "2.1.3-servicing-26708-02",
"Microsoft.NETCore.Platforms": "2.1.1-servicing-26708-02",
"Microsoft.NETCore.Targets": "2.0.0",
"NETStandard.Library": "2.0.3"
},
"compile": {
[BUNCH OF ENTRIES FOR ref/netcoreapp2.1/*.dll HERE]
}
+ "compileOnly": true
}, @dsplaisted is this an SDK bug? @pranavkm would this break MVC/Razor compilation? |
Otherwise, build output and publish output looks the same. |
MVC doesn't specifically look at the |
Ok, then I think we would be okay to make this change. I tested that build-time and runtime compliation still work. |
This is being punted for now. Removing from the 2.1 milestone |
At this point, there is no plan to change this in 2.1. @dsplaisted do you think we should address this in 2.2? |
My opinion is still that it would probably be better to address this in a different way (ie via two implicit references instead of a package dependency). It's possible that I don't understand everything about this though. From this issue, it's not clear to me if there's even a concrete problem that would be solved by adding the dependency, or by having multiple implicit references. |
Cool, two implicit references it is. That just reduces the differences between 2.1 and 2.2, and so far this hasn't been an issue. Closing as wontfix since we don't have a compelling reason to do this. |
Part of implementing dotnet/aspnetcore#3307 we need to resolve is how to make sure both AspNetCore.App and NETCore.App end up in the restore graph so you get all the right ref assemblies.
@JunTaoLuo looked into this in the past but ran into issues. We should take a closer look at those again to inform our strategy about how we should move forward with dotnet/aspnetcore#3307
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: