Copied to clipboard

Flag this post as spam?

This post will be reported to the moderators as potential spam to be looked at


  • Dekker 13 posts 33 karma points
    Oct 18, 2010 @ 13:03
    Dekker
    0

    Missing DLLs in Codeplex source (compared to release zips)

    While doing some core hacking, I compiled Umbraco then took those compiled DLLs and moved them into the BIN directory of a working local website that I've been working on (actually, deleted the original DLLs, then copied). This led to an interesting discovery: The umbraco.presentation project does NOT compile the same as the official release build.

    Specifically, ClientDependency.Core.dll is missing from the Codeplex source. If you checkout the TRUNK and build it, that DLL is missing. To make changes to a site that was started with one of the release downloads, you need to keep some DLLs from the release download in addition to the newly compiled Umbraco.

    Didn't look much deeper into the DLL differences, but at lease ClientDependency.Core.dll should be checked into the ForeignDLLs directory of the Trunk.

    Dekker

  • Aaron Powell 1708 posts 3046 karma points c-trib
    Oct 18, 2010 @ 13:09
    Aaron Powell
    0

    The latest source is actually in the $/branches/4.1 folder, it's not in the trunk (yes it's confusing).

    If you want to modify a 4.5 release though you'll need to get the right changeset, which is here: http://umbraco.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/view/76545

  • Dekker 13 posts 33 karma points
    Oct 18, 2010 @ 13:41
    Dekker
    0

    Thanks Slace, but I did get the 76545 for my changeset... At least Codeplex tells you what changeset is linked to which release.

    I just peeked in the 4.1 branch and yup, it is there.

    That's definitely counter-intuitive! I saw in the branches that it stopped at 4.1, and figured the trunk was where the current development was. We need better branching (at each milestone) so that people hacking the core can better re-create the release using the source! 

     

    Just as a final update, I re-compiled with the correct branch, and everything seems peachy. Thanks Slace.

  • Gunnar Liljas 18 posts 42 karma points
    Oct 21, 2010 @ 00:43
    Gunnar Liljas
    0

    Yes, it's very counter-intuitive and non-standard. I really wish this would be fixed.

Please Sign in or register to post replies

Write your reply to:

Draft