Skip to content

Jobs: do not inject the swiftautolink file into archives #777

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 21, 2021

Conversation

compnerd
Copy link
Member

It has been observed that a static library may sometimes contain the
autolink extracted rules. This causes autolink-extract to not be able
to process the archive as a dependency, causing a build failure.

It has been observed that a static library may sometimes contain the
autolink extracted rules.  This causes autolink-extract to not be able
to process the archive as a dependency, causing a build failure.
@compnerd compnerd requested a review from a team as a code owner July 30, 2021 00:36
@compnerd
Copy link
Member Author

CC: @CodaFi @tomerd @buttaface

@compnerd
Copy link
Member Author

@swift-ci please test

Copy link
Member

@finagolfin finagolfin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for fixing this.

@finagolfin
Copy link
Member

Would be good to get this in. I'm putting together a pull to download the latest 5.5 snapshots and test them on my daily Android CI, and I currently have to disable using this new Swift driver because of this bug.

@finagolfin
Copy link
Member

@DougGregor, would be good to get this in, or using Swift static libraries on linux will regress with the 5.5 release. I'd like to get #784 in too.

@finagolfin
Copy link
Member

@artemcm, can we get this in too? This currently breaks building the Foundation static libraries for Android, when it tries to link plutil against them and fails because of the extra autolink file.

Copy link
Contributor

@artemcm artemcm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This one is good to go.
cc @airspeedswift

@finagolfin
Copy link
Member

Ping @airspeedswift, would be good to get this in.

@finagolfin
Copy link
Member

Pinging @airspeedswift, can we get this into the point release?

@finagolfin
Copy link
Member

@artemcm, any reason why this pull and #784 have not gone in yet? It's been a month and a half since you approved them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants