Skip to content

Conversation

1eyewonder
Copy link
Contributor

This PR is re-adding some code that was lost from #4272 when code was getting bumped for various v9 things. If this code was purposefully removed, feel free to close this PR but I didn't see anything obvious as to why it may have been removed. I figured I would keep it at net8 for now since that was previously approved. We can then work on doing any net9 updates desired in later PRs

@1eyewonder
Copy link
Contributor Author

Paket Lock Diff Report

This report was generated via Paket Lock Diff

Additions - (0)

Removals - (5)

Version Upgrades - (2)

Version Downgrades - (0)

@1eyewonder
Copy link
Contributor Author

I believe these changes should be good to go. The failing tests seemed normal as mentioned in the discussion on #4272. Let me know if I can update anything else 😄

@smoothdeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

@1eyewonder, could you check those:

  • keeping at least the target list formatted as it was in build.fsx
  • setting framework restrictions framework: >= net461, >= net8.0 in the paket.dependencies in case it removes some bloat in the .lock file
  • seeing if we should remove the other redirects: force (I assume it is pointless given executables are ilmerged)

Thanks for the updates.

@1eyewonder
Copy link
Contributor Author

@smoothdeveloper Sorry, I had VSCode set to format on save! Made all the necessary changes. Good call on the framework restrictions 😎

@1eyewonder
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actually spoke too soon. Looking into some errors

@smoothdeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry, framework restrictions work without :

framework >= net461, >= net80

@1eyewonder
Copy link
Contributor Author

Paket Lock Diff Report

This report was generated via Paket Lock Diff

Additions - (0)

Removals - (46)

Version Upgrades - (3)

Version Downgrades - (0)

@1eyewonder
Copy link
Contributor Author

@smoothdeveloper It appears adding the framework restrictions and removing the Newtonsoft redirect is causing build issues on the build server. Have any ideas as to what the errors could mean? I'm interpreting this as a FAKE build issue but I could be wrong

@Numpsy
Copy link
Contributor

Numpsy commented Feb 10, 2025

@smoothdeveloper It appears adding the framework restrictions and removing the Newtonsoft redirect is causing build issues on the build server. Have any ideas as to what the errors could mean? I'm interpreting this as a FAKE build issue but I could be wrong

Does it work to set a framework restriction of >= net461, >= net80 when Paket.Core is built as .NET Standard 2.0? (I mean, does it need to include netstandard2.0 in the restriction as well?)

@smoothdeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

@Numpsy, AFAIU, it is about the package resolution that relies only on package metadata; not reliant on the runtime paket executable is running.

I need to look at the branch again and see if the tweaks I suggested are worth anything / what is causing the issue with CI.

@Numpsy
Copy link
Contributor

Numpsy commented Feb 12, 2025

I'm not sure, but if I build this branch locally I get the same error and then the netstandard2.0 paket file here is empty:
image

and Rider shows the .NET Standard build of Paket.Core as having no NuGet dependencies.

If I add netstandard2.0 to the framework list, then it seems to work.

@1eyewonder
Copy link
Contributor Author

I ended up reverting the changes involving the framework restrictions in the paket.dependencies since they were causing issues in the CI at the moment. I'd say we try to tackle the issue in another PR since this gets the code back in which appeared to be accidentally removed. I think this should be good to go, but let me know if people think otherwise.

@1eyewonder
Copy link
Contributor Author

Here is the paket.lock diff after reverting the changes

Paket Lock Diff Report

This report was generated via Paket Lock Diff

Additions - (0)

Removals - (5)

Version Upgrades - (2)

Version Downgrades - (0)

@Numpsy
Copy link
Contributor

Numpsy commented Jun 25, 2025

Has the CI stopped running for pull requests?

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.

3 participants