You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The developers of MathNet.Numerics have two variants, the main one and a legacy .Signed variant with a strong name, both of which identify internally as MathNet.Numerics; the developers themselves state that "This package contains strong-named assemblies for legacy use cases (not recommended)" and Microsoft say "Strong naming has no benefits on .NET Core/5+." Is there a need to keep using the legacy version rather than switching to the (much more popular) regular one?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think I saw an issue from a Dutch developer asking for something to avoid triggering the warning MS say can safely be disabled as irrelevant on modern apps.
If it does concern legacy users, I think making the Framework 4.7.2 dependencies include the Signed version and the Core/6.0 one use the regular unsigned one might suit everyone.
NPOI Version
2.7.0
Issue Description
The developers of
MathNet.Numerics
have two variants, the main one and a legacy.Signed
variant with a strong name, both of which identify internally asMathNet.Numerics
; the developers themselves state that "This package contains strong-named assemblies for legacy use cases (not recommended)" and Microsoft say "Strong naming has no benefits on .NET Core/5+." Is there a need to keep using the legacy version rather than switching to the (much more popular) regular one?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: