I have moved binary files into the project under the bin folder to avoid publishing the same binary files twice since one of the binaries is huge; i.e. 15MB.
This was originally in a separate Includes folder. So the files were being copied twice to the publish folder.
Is the bin folder the correct placement for these or are there other steps I should take?
Edit:
Sorry if I gave a poor explanation (and original title). I've changed the title; this was "Where should static libraries (3rd party DLLs) be kept in Visual Studio?", and is now, "How can I avoid publishing the library folder in a Web Publish?"
As mentioned, I originally had a separate folder named Includes. When I did a Web Publish, each of the DLLs are published twice; one into the bin folder, the other into the Includes folder. In this case, I am publishing at least an extra 15MB of unnecessary file space. Normally, not a big deal but if I am on a very slow connection, I'll need to wait longer to deploy the project to its environment.
I moved the DLLs back into a separate folder but the folder is still published along with the bin output folder. I did this to see if the placement of these files would set their properties differently.
I have tried various settings for Build Action and other property settings for these libraries without success.
Is there no way around publishing the DLLs twice?
If these files are part of the overall source of the system (not necessarily as source code, but as source-control-tracked artifacts nonetheless), then you probably don't want to keep them in the output folder for the build. The output folder should be transient and shouldn't be tracked in source control.
Keep 3rd party libraries in a library folder. The folder structure in source control might look something like this:
/
--/lib
--/Project1
----/SomeSubFolder
--/Project2
----/Images
----/Styles
and so on.
Each Project would have its own bin folder when it gets compiled, which itself may contain other folders for types of compilation (Release, Debug, etc.). But you don't want those build artifacts tracked in source control or in any way interfering with what's in source control.
The projects would reference their library dependencies, and at build time those dependencies would be copied to the output folder to be used by the application runtime.
I have an app that I am moving to another server. It is complaining that it is missing TABCTL32.OCX. I have located this file on another server and I want to copy and paste it across.
I have discovered that there is also a file called TABCTL32.DEP on the server I am moving from. Do I have to copy both files across or is the dependency file optional?
I have tried it with an without the DEP. The app works in both cases. It is a production server so I want to be sure.
Those .DEP (depdendency) files are instructions about a library meant to be used by packaging tools. These files have no run-time significance, containing only development metadata. They are text files.
They contain the preferred ("designed") location to install the library, sub-dependencies of the library including optional localization "satellite" resource DLLs, version information, etc.
See articles such as INFO: How Setup Wizard and PDW Use Dependency Files.
This is information a packager should use along with other "rules databases" such as VB6DEP.ini. Programmers are also supposed to create them if they expect other developers to use their libraries.
If you are using an "impaired" 3rd party packaging technology that is ignorant of .DEP files it is up to you to read them and incorporate the information they contain in your build process. You are also responsible as a developer to keep your dev machine's .DEP files and VB6DEP.ini file up to date, since they often are not updated by Microsoft anymore.
You can't just copy files willy-nilly from one machine to another. Go find this program's installer and run it on the new machine.
A .dep file is a file used by the Visual Basic Setup Wizard to determine what dependencies your ocx file have. You can open the file with Windows Notepad to view the contents.
Unless you are using the Visual Basic Package and Deploy Wizard, you can ignore this file.
For more info, see INFO: How Setup Wizard and PDW Use Dependency Files
I'm wondering about privacy and personal information that's contained in the debug files created by Visual Studio.
I have a project that I have compiled for both debug and release, and I have to zip basically the whole directory tree that contains the solution, the source, the pdbs, etc. and make it available.
I'm wondering what type of information will be released by doing this, other than source and binaries obviously.
Thanks!
Done correctly you will not release any personal information by doing this.
Things to watch out for:
Sensitive information in paths. If you keep your source files in My Documents folder, your Windows user name will be leaked in .pdb files, as it embeds full source file paths. I recommend copying solution to directory c:\dev\project (or similar) and rebuilding there.
Don't publish .suo, .user files, as these may contain sensitive information, and are generated by studio automatically for each user
Look out for sensitive information that may be in app.config files
One more suggestion: don't publish any intermediate files (usually in obj directory). These will not help recipients in any way, but may contain personal information.
I am building a cross platform product and one of the requirements is across windows(win32,AMD64 and IA61). The product as is relatively simple CLI but we have a separate build team who checks out the code from CVS and build in separate build environments. I am able to build succesfully(using Visual C++ 2005) in one platform(AMD machine). But once I check in the code, check out the build fails.
The cause of the build failure is because the include library paths are wrongly specified in the property sheets. Specifically the output file folder under the Linker in property pages are specified wrongly. So these libraries get built in a different folder from where the other projects are expecting them.
However along with the source I check in the .sln files (and later .vcproj files) also everytime. Morover if I open the .sln file in the folder where the build is not succeeding, there is no difference between the one where I could succesfully build(pre check in). In fact using windiff I could not see any difference between the two build folders (except some .ncb and cvs log files).
So any idea what is going on? Where does VC++ 2005 take the include directories take the output folder path from if not from .sln? Is CVS somehow interfering with the process? Anything else I could try out.
Thanks in advance.
Just to update the problem was resolved. The root cause is the .vcproj files were not getting checked in CVS!! This is where the individual project settings were stored(I was under the impression that this is done in .sln files).
I think the problem can be that after you have changed the settings in one build configuration (for example x86-Release) but forgotten to change them for another configuration (for example ia64-Debug), and when configuration changes, you have this problem.
Another thing that I would check on your place is project dependencies. If those are set in the right way VS will look for project output exactly where it is outputted, even when you change the output folder.
Do you have any binary files checked in as ASCII?
The round trip to and from CVS can corrupt binary files that are incorrectly marked as ASCII because CVS performs character processing on ASCII files (e.g. to give you the correct end of line codes for your OS). Corruption can occur even in an all Windows environment.
See the Binary section in the CVS FAQ for more information.
Visual Studio solutions contain two types of hidden user files. One is the solution .suo file which is a binary file. The other is the project .user file which is a text file. Exactly what data do these files contain?
I've also been wondering whether I should add these files to source control (Subversion in my case). If I don't add these files and another developer checks out the solution, will Visual Studio automatically create new user files?
These files contain user preference configurations that are in general specific to your machine, so it's better not to put it in SCM. Also, VS will change it almost every time you execute it, so it will always be marked by the SCM as 'changed'.
I don't include either, I'm in a project using VS for 2 years and had no problems doing that. The only minor annoyance is that the debug parameters (execution path, deployment target, etc.) are stored in one of those files (don't know which), so if you have a standard for them you won't be able to 'publish' it via SCM for other developers to have the entire development environment 'ready to use'.
You don't need to add these -- they contain per-user settings, and other developers won't want your copy.
Others have explained why having the *.suo and *.user files under source control is not a good idea.
I'd like to suggest that you add these patterns to the svn:ignore property for 2 reasons:
So other developers won't wind up
with one developer's settings.
So when you view status, or commit
files, those files won't clutter the code base and obscure new files you need to add.
We don't commit the binary file (*.suo), but we commit the .user file. The .user file contains for example the start options for debugging the project. You can find the start options in the properties of the project in the tab "Debug". We used NUnit in some projects and configured the nunit-gui.exe as the start option for the project. Without the .user file, each team member would have to configure it separately.
Hope this helps.
Since I found this question/answer through Google in 2011, I thought I'd take a second and add the link for the *.SDF files created by Visual Studio 2010 to the list of files that probably should not be added to version control (the IDE will re-create them). Since I wasn't sure that a *.sdf file may have a legitimate use elsewhere, I only ignored the specific [projectname].sdf file from SVN.
Why does the Visual Studio conversion wizard 2010 create a massive SDF database file?
No, you should not add them to source control since - as you said - they're user specific.
SUO (Solution User Options): Records
all of the options that you might
associate with your solution so that
each time you open it, it includes
customizations that you
have made.
The .user file contains the user options for the project (while SUO is for the solution) and extends the project file name (e.g. anything.csproj.user contains user settings for the anything.csproj project).
This appears to be Microsoft's opinion on the matter:
Adding (and editing) .suo files to source control
I don't know why your project stores the DebuggingWorkingDirectory in
the suo file. If that is a user specific setting you should consider
storing that in the *.proj.user filename. If that setting is shareable
between all users working on the project you should consider storing
it in the project file itself.
Don't even think of adding the suo file to source control! The SUO
(soluton user options) file is meant to contain user-specific
settings, and should not be shared amongst users working on the same
solution. If you'd be adding the suo file in the scc database I don't
know what other things in the IDE you'd break, but from source control
point of view you will break web projects scc integration, the Lan vs
Internet plugin used by different users for VSS access, and you could
even cause the scc to break completely (VSS database path stored in
suo file that may be valid for you may not be valid for another user).
Alin Constantin (MSFT)
By default Microsoft's Visual SourceSafe does not include these files in the source control because they are user-specific settings files. I would follow that model if you're using SVN as source control.
Visual Studio will automatically create them. I don't recommend putting them in source control. There have been numerous times where a local developer's SOU file was causing VS to behave erratically on that developers box. Deleting the file and then letting VS recreate it always fixed the issues.
No.
I just wanted a real short answer, and there wasn't any.
On the MSDN website, it clearly states that
The solution user options (.suo) file contains per-user solution
options. This file should not be checked in to source code control.
So I'd say it is pretty safe to ignore these files while checking in stuff to your source control.
I wouldn't. Anything that could change per "user" is usually not good in source control. .suo, .user, obj/bin directories
These files are user-specific options, which should be independent of the solution itself. Visual Studio will create new ones as necessary, so they do not need to be checked in to source control. Indeed, it would probably be better not to as this allows individual developers to customize their environment as they see fit.
You cannot source-control the .user files, because that's user specific. It contains the name of remote machine and other user-dependent things. It's a vcproj related file.
The .suo file is a sln related file and it contains the "solution user options" (startup project(s), windows position (what's docked and where, what's floating), etc.)
It's a binary file, and I don't know if it contains something "user related".
In our company we do not take those files under source control.
They contain the specific settings about the project that are typically assigned to a single developer (like, for example, the starting project and starting page to start when you debug your application).
So it's better not adding them to version control, leaving VS recreate them so that each developer can have the specific settings they want.
.user is the user settings, and I think .suo is the solution user options. You don't want these files under source control; they will be re-created for each user.
Others have explained that no, you don't want this in version control. You should configure your version control system to ignore the file (e.g. via a .gitignore file).
To really understand why, it helps to see what's actually in this file. I wrote a command line tool that lets you see the .suo file's contents.
Install it on your machine via:
dotnet tool install -g suo
It has two sub-commands, keys and view.
suo keys <path-to-suo-file>
This will dump out the key for each value in the file. For example (abridged):
nuget
ProjInfoEx
BookmarkState
DebuggerWatches
HiddenSlnFolders
ObjMgrContentsV8
UnloadedProjects
ClassViewContents
OutliningStateDir
ProjExplorerState
TaskListShortcuts
XmlPackageOptions
BackgroundLoadData
DebuggerExceptions
DebuggerFindSource
DebuggerFindSymbol
ILSpy-234190A6EE66
MRU Solution Files
UnloadedProjectsEx
ApplicationInsights
DebuggerBreakpoints
OutliningStateV1674
...
As you can see, lots of IDE features use this file to store their state.
Use the view command to see a given key's value. For example:
$ suo view nuget --format=utf8 .suo
nuget
?{"WindowSettings":{"project:MyProject":{"SourceRepository":"nuget.org","ShowPreviewWindow":false,"ShowDeprecatedFrameworkWindow":true,"RemoveDependencies":false,"ForceRemove":false,"IncludePrerelease":false,"SelectedFilter":"UpdatesAvailable","DependencyBehavior":"Lowest","FileConflictAction":"PromptUser","OptionsExpanded":false,"SortPropertyName":"ProjectName","SortDirection":"Ascending"}}}
More information on the tool here: https://github.com/drewnoakes/suo
Using Rational ClearCase the answer is no. Only the .sln & .*proj should be registered in source code control.
I can't answer for other vendors. If I recall correctly, these files are "user" specific options, your environment.
Don't add any of those files into version control. These files are auto generated with work station specific information, if checked-in to version control that will cause trouble in other work stations.
No, they shouldn't be committed to source control as they are developer/machine-specific local settings.
GitHub maintain a list of suggested file types for Visual Studio users to ignore at https://github.com/github/gitignore/blob/master/VisualStudio.gitignore
For svn, I have the following global-ignore property set:
*.DotSettings.User
*.onetoc2
*.suo .vs PrecompiledWeb thumbs.db obj bin debug
*.user *.vshost.*
*.tss
*.dbml.layout
As explained in other answers, both .suo and .user shouldn't be added to source control, since they are user/machine-specific (BTW .suo for newest versions of VS was moved into dedicated temporary directory .vs, which should be kept out of source control completely).
However if your application requires some setup of environment for debugging in VS (such settings are usually kept in .user file), it may be handy to prepare a sample file (naming it like .user.SAMPLE) and add it to source control for references.
Instead of hard-coded absolute path in such file, it makes sense to use relative ones or rely on environment variables, so the sample may be generic enough to be easily re-usable by others.
If you set your executable dir dependencies in ProjectProperties>Debugging>Environment, the paths are stored in '.user' files.
Suppose I set this string in above-mentioned field: "PATH=C:\xyz\bin"
This is how it will get stored in '.user' file:
<LocalDebuggerEnvironment>PATH=C:\xyz\bin$(LocalDebuggerEnvironment)</LocalDebuggerEnvironment>
This helped us a lot while working in OpenCV. We could use different versions of OpenCV for different projects. Another advantage is, it was very easy to set up our projects on a new machine. We just had to copy corresponding dependency dirs. So for some projects, I prefer to add the '.user' to source control.
Even though, it is entirely dependent on projects. You can take a call based on your needs.