|
By reading the reviews of those that have.
They list the aims, advantages, pitfalls and disadvantages.
I too, fail to see the overall experience as being worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
For a long time I tried to stop the use of NuGet packages, but after a bunch of new colleagues arrived they had their way and now the builder is totally dependent on NuGet and the internet.
And of course they were totally surprised that suddenly version conflicts arose.
But on the positive side: I must admit that last year I tried to get the new NpgSql driver for PostgreSQL working and could not get it done without using NuGet.
I even have plans to create a privat NuGet server, see: private-nuget-servers[^]
So as the saying goes: "Go with the flow" ...
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a few run-ins with NuGet during my career, but apart from one time, nothing I couldn't fix.
What really bothers me is that it tells me to update to package v5.0.0, which I know to be built on .NET 5.0, while my project is .NET Core 3.1.
That's not compatible, yet it wants me to update... 
It shouldn't be that difficult to recognize my .NET version and then only show me updates for that particular version, or so you'd think.
|
|
|
|
|
Technology exists not to "being fixed", but to HELP development! If nuget has defect in working principles, I see no reason even mention this tool.
|
|
|
|
|
If technology could never be fixed we'd all be out of a job dead (probably) 
|
|
|
|
|
We just moved from 2.x to 5.
Good luck when you get there, take booze!
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
I'll skip 5 as it's not an LTS release.
Although the move from 3.1 to 5 should be pretty painless... In theory 
One of my customers, the only one with a software (1-man) team of their own, is on .NET 5 and so far it looks exactly like my 3.1 code 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: It shouldn't be that difficult
Do you realize what you just wrote!!!!!
Everyone who's read is is now doomed to a hell of unsolvable problems for all eternity. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
How are you using NuGet? All I do is right-click my project in Visual Studio, Manage NuGet Packages and then install what I need. It's much easier than going out to find the vendor's website, downloading an sdk, and adding references in Visual Studio.
And mine don't ever try to update so new versions or url changes don't affect me. I've been using it for the last couple of years and have not had the problems you mentioned so you must be doing something wrong. 
|
|
|
|
|
Wait until you use 3rd party libs that need different versions of dll's, then it's party time
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of proprietary libraries. Third party stuff. Microsoft Azure stuff. Packaging my own old libraries in a NuGet library... At least for me the whole process feels painful and time-consuming.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
Deyan Georgiev wrote: Third party stuff. Microsoft Azure stuff.
That's me too.
|
|
|
|
|
We're using them quite intensively.
We create and consume them for internal libraries (for C# and C++ projects) with Azure DevOps feeds and use public nugets available on nuget.org feed
No big issues so far.
For C++ packages, there seems to be a push to vcpkg.
But heck .. xkcd: Standards
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid version conflicts, create your own local NuGet repository and only install from that. That will keep NuGet from automagically "upgrading" your packages, and allow you more control over your upgrading process (upgrade only when you want to).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you think it's WAY easier just to delete nuget and use normal libs in fixed folders???
|
|
|
|
|
Sure it is, but you can't argue the convenience of having the nuget packages to provide the libs and dependencies so you don't have to worry about getting everything manually.
I was providing a solution that doesn't involve changing your processes with regards to NuGet packages.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
You mix all in one. Nuget is useful only in the way that every package has... info about dependencies! Period. I have no problem in getting all depended libs (esp. if reference contains info about homepage or binaries).
Any commercial dev is a serious process (opposite to linux clowns who is ready to spend DAYS on hell knows what). There is no place for "guess what library is breaking the build!". Moreover: developer can intentionally keep old verion to keep compatibility with environment of clients (say, somebody still works in Win XP). That's why archaic 'nuget' is unacceptable.
I agree only on one help: if I run util like getrefs somepackage and it downloads all dependencies. Everything else I can and must do manually.
|
|
|
|
|
Somewhere a few days ago I posted "NuGet is a virus". 
What particularly annoys me is:
<dependentAssembly>
<assemblyIdentity name="Newtonsoft.Json" publicKeyToken="30ad4fe6b2a6aeed" culture="neutral" />
<bindingRedirect oldVersion="0.0.0.0-10.0.0.0" newVersion="10.0.0.0" />
</dependentAssembly>
Crap like that.
|
|
|
|
|
I like Nuget. We use it for everything in our shop.
I can't convince you to like it. I can suggest you learn how to properly work with it, and I say this kindly, and not teasingly.
If you have a team of 10 developers and only 2 know how to properly work with Nuget and keep things updated properly, then you are destined for failure, because the other 8 devs will elephant things up for sure.
It does have its annoying problems, but they are manageable IMHO.
Edit: we have our own Nuget repo (See JSOP's response) and we use this for most of our packages and for the same reasons that John mentioned.
modified 3-Mar-21 19:00pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I admit, that what you're saying makes a what of sense. 
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
I limit myself to the ones shipped by Microsoft. Ones like the UWP / WPF tool kits. No issues.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
+1 to avoid Nuget. It always was and is COMPROMISE to build process - you nerver be sure smth is not changed. And never sure what and when "it" will download. Definitely "school boys" who bring this sh****t to .NET (from Linux) didn't have enough qualification and enterprise development at all.
Say "no" to drugs, say "no-no-never!!" to nuget.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the worst dependency management option, apart from all of the other options.
Jon Skeet wrote about some of the problems a while back:
Versioning limitations in .NET | Jon Skeet's coding blog[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
We use them.
I hate them.
Nothing worse than that one person on staff who has to run off and try every bell and whistle.
Multiple layers of code across a dozen libraries just to put a form on a page.
I cannot wait to retire.
|
|
|
|
|
This generations spin on DLL hell. It's not so bad when you have one or 2 packages that stand on their own. But when the packages have dependencies on other packages which depend on other packages. And one package want v2.0 and another wants v2.2, it becomes a kluge. TFS seems to choke on pulling solutions and ACTUALLY recognize package dependency. Or do recognize and tell me packages are installed but throws errors of missing references no matter how often I refresh or clean/build, etc. Often have to delete the reference and readd.
Local nuget seems to have helped some.. Until a genius updates a package (or packages) and decides it should have all the latest and greatest dependent packages without thinking about downstream impact and ends up breaking stuff. Thats more of an internal problem but still an example of how wrong things can go in a nuget world.
Our team has lovingly referred to it as NO-GET.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
