Replies: 3 comments
-
I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this issue. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
/cc @mmitche @premun @akoeplinger @mdh1418 @tkapin @MichaelSimons |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@directhex There are a few layers of build that happen when you invoke the SB command, and the msbuild parameters don't tend to get routed through all the way. I think we'll generally need to make TOS/TArch a first-class concept in source build. Since I am also coming up to speed on the intricacies of SB, let me try and explain and @MichaelSimons @crummel can correct where I am wrong.
I think the main issue you're seeing with passing TOS/TArch as |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I've been tinkering away on the VMR, with the grand goal being the ability to build our servicing releases of mobile with it.
#3149 notwithstanding, the current status is:
arch -x86_64
prefix to prep.sh/build.shThe obvious gap there is the ability to build arm64 Mac from x64, and vice versa - which ties in to the general "big engineering job" which needs to be resolved, of "building the VMR for RID A, using a computer with RID B". osx-arm64 from osx-x64 is the obvious easily reproduced example of this, but it extends to all the mobile ports, wasm, etc - overriding the TargetOS/TargetArchitecture is all well and good but the whole build system assumes "I am building on the target system" because that's how Linux distro builds do it, and source-build grew from their needs first.
source-build's build.sh doesn't use TargetOS/TargetArchitecture by itself, and passing those through with
-- /p:
doesn't achieve much:If we can get that basic case working, it shouldn't be hard to get mobile working.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions