Add support for nuspec property "developmentDependency" #3

enhancement
Ok, another thought:
On one side, your test specifies in packages.config that the JSON.NET is
not required for runtime, on other side .csproj indicates direct runtime
dependency by project references. I would consider this an
undefined/conradicting behavior and/or badly authored dependency package.

For correctly authored development dependency packages that conditions
should not even matter, so I've reverted the change.




On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Immo Landwerth <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> In src/NuProj.Targets/NuProj.targets:
>
> > @@ -441,7 +443,7 @@
> >            Returns="@(NuGetFileDependency)">
> >        <ItemGroup>
> >          <NuGetFileDependency Include="%(NuGetDependency.PackageDirectoryPath)\**\*"
> > -                             Condition="'%(NuGetDependency.PackageDirectoryPath)' != ''" />
> > +                             Condition="'%(NuGetDependency.PackageDirectoryPath)' != '' And '%(NuGetDependency.DevelopmentDependency)' != 'true'" />
>
> Not sure whether this intentional but it causes the following behavior:
>
>    1. I've created a library and added a package reference to JSON.NET
>    2. I've opened the packages.config and added
>    developmentDependency="true" to the package element.
>    3. I've created a NuProj project and added a reference to the class
>    library.
>
> The resulting NuGet package will not have a package dependency on JSON.NET
> but now directly includes Newtonsoft.Json.dll, side by side to the class
> library.
>
> Is that really the correct behavior? I would have expected that the
> Newtonsoft.Json.dll wouldn't be packaged up. Maybe my understanding of
> development dependencies is wrong but it seems like this would be useful
> for cases like code gen where the dependency is only used during design
> time but isn't required for runtime. In that case, I don't think it would
> make sense to package up the files coming from development dependencies.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/terrajobst/nuproj/pull/6/files#r16756969>.
>