Provide strongly-named assembly

[josesimoes]

Hi,

I was trying to use this library in a VS extension that I'm working but can't do it because it's not signed.
I can submit a PR for this, if you're willing to accept it.

[DeanMauro]

@josesimoes I had the same problem. You can use StrongNamer in the meantime.

[josesimoes]

Thanks @DeanMauro! Wasn't aware of that tool. Very handy!! 👏 👍

[Romanx]

Hi everyone, sorry for not replying sooner. I originally did strong name Stubble and then removed it when i discovered StrongNamer which was linked above. Recent guidance from MS is that you should strongly name your assembly and considering the way we version the library we can be sure that the binding redirect will not change (until we do a major version bump) so this should be safe.

I'll leave the issue here for us to target however it won't be a current priority since StrongNamer is a solution for most. Thanks for reporting and using Stubble!

[schwarzr]

StrongNamer does not really work for me, becuause i want to use the package as a Dependency for my own strong named library. Are you planning on Signing you assemblies in the future. Seams to be the official recommendation from Microsoft.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/library-guidance/strong-naming

[Romanx]

Hi @schwarzr it's on my list to do but i'm not sure the effect of adding strong naming as a non major version change.

Hi @Romanx. I would also need the strong named version of your package. Any updates to this topic?

[janis-veinbergs]

I do use Strong Namer msbuild task and an "init" project which references packages that are not strong name signed. On build they get signed and dependencies afterwards works very well. That is, other projects using same nuget will automatically get signed version of assembly.