Fix #1966

[kblohm]

No description provided.

[kblohm]

@matthid I probably have to add the restricted System.Reactive to the paket.references aswell, right?

[matthid]

I think this is exactly what we should do, thanks for taking care of this. Will try to release this now :)

[kblohm]

IMO the underlying problem is that paket does not really handle the dependencies as expected if you use dotnet pack. Or is that by design? I could also not just get it to work with dotnet pack by adding a paket.template. Should we switch FAKE to use Paket.pack? (although that does not directly help in this exact case, but it would at least not screw up dependencies that FAKE defines)

[matthid]

Good point. I'm not sure if that ever worked :).
However, if that is indeed the expected behavior we can change how dotnet pack works (as we call paket fix-nuxpec in that scenario and can basically modify the nuspec as we please, we could even consider an existing paket.template)

[matthid]

fsprojects/Paket#2883

[kblohm]

I am not sure if everybody expects it to work this way. But as i looked into the paket.dependencies for FSharp.Control.Reactive and saw that is did specify to use System.Reactive ~> 3.0 i was kind of surprised that the restriction for a version < 4.0 was not in the actual nuget package. IMO this way paket is not really that "useful" if you plan to publish nuget packages with it. Everything paket does to handle your dependencies properly is suddenly lost if you publish your code. I dont even think i would require a paket.template the same way dotnet pack does not require a .nuspec anymore.

[matthid]

@kblohm Yes I talked with @forki and he agreed that we should fix the defaults here (ie by default take the ranges from the dependencies file).
Just note that there are cases where you want to "break" out of this behavior, because you might want to test/build with a bugfix release and want your final package to allow lower or higher version ranges.

[kblohm]

Sure, but thats what the optional paket.template could be used for right? Or make it a parameter if that is possible. It would be great if the default would just "work" for the 90% case. 👍

[matthid]

exactly