Replies: 2 comments
-
I noticed this too, I agree with this |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
I converted this to an issue, please follow there. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
I created a discussion rather than issue as I'm unsure whether this is feasible. I originally asked this on SO.
The nuget installation pages for development-only packages (e.g. analysers, build tools), typically show this:
For such packages, the
PrivateAssets
property is always set toall
. But theIncludeAssets
property is always specified too. I was wondering whether it's redundant. I got a nice answer from @zivkan who explained it's necessary.But he raised an interesting point, which is that it's neater to use
<ExcludeAssets>compile</ExcludeAssets>
, or even better:<PackageReference Include="Foo" Version="1.2.3" ExcludeAssets="compile" />
.I'd like to do that. I'm wondering whether there are possible problems with that?
And if it's "safe", how about using that format on the nuget pages, and simplifying everyone's project files?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions