Skip to content

Backport SharpCompress removal from ConsolidateCalamariPackages to 2026.1#2012

Open
enf0rc3 wants to merge 2 commits into
release/2026.1from
lts-2026.1-sharpcompress-hotfix
Open

Backport SharpCompress removal from ConsolidateCalamariPackages to 2026.1#2012
enf0rc3 wants to merge 2 commits into
release/2026.1from
lts-2026.1-sharpcompress-hotfix

Conversation

@enf0rc3

@enf0rc3 enf0rc3 commented Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Background

We want to bump/remove the vulnerable SharpCompress version in Octopus Server 2026.1, but cannot while Calamari.ConsolidateCalamariPackages still depends on SharpCompress. That library is loaded in-process by Server, so a Server-side SharpCompress bump breaks it at runtime: the 0.x API renamed ZipArchive.Open -> OpenArchive, throwing MissingMethodException.

The same problem was already resolved on 2026.2 / main by switching the library to System.IO.Compression. This PR backports that work to 2026.1.

Discussed in Slack: https://octopusdeploy.slack.com/archives/C03SG0LFJHX/p1781237251289469

Results

Straight cherry-picks (merge commits, -m 1) of:

Both are required and applied in order: #1913 alone ships the duplicate-file bug that #1926 fixes.

Note: the SharpCompress <PackageReference> on 2026.1 carried a <NoWarn>NU1902</NoWarn> suppression that did not exist on main, so the cherry-pick could not auto-remove it. It was removed manually; the project csproj now matches main exactly.

This is a self-contained Calamari change and does not require a corresponding Server change (per #1913). It unblocks the separate, planned Server SharpCompress bump.

@APErebus APErebus left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Just a friendly reminder to do a normal commit, not a squash 😃

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants