Skip to content
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

Fix static binaries check #3206

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 4, 2015
Merged

Fix static binaries check #3206

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 4, 2015

Conversation

neonichu
Copy link
Member

@neonichu neonichu commented Mar 2, 2015

This limits our check for static transitive dependencies to those which are known to not work.

Reasoning:

  • should_build? == false means the static library or framework will be linked directly to the user target
  • Linking a pod target which depends transitively on the same static library or framework will fail because of missing symbols
  • Linking both targets against the static library or framework will likely result in duplicated symbols

=> this kind of dependency cannot be fulfilled if the integration is done via frameworks.

This fixes #3194

should.raise(Informative) { @installer.install! }.message.should.match /transitive.*libThing/
end

it 'allows transitive static dependencies which contain other source code' do
Sandbox::FileAccessor.any_instance.stubs(:source_files).returns([Pathname('/yolo.m')])
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please be consistent with absolute/relative paths, even in the specs

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Because the install! is actually running further in this spec, it needs to be absolute to not fail. Let's change the other spec to also be absolute?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sure, just so long as they're consistent.

@segiddins
Copy link
Member

👍

@neonichu neonichu force-pushed the fix-static-binaries-check branch 2 times, most recently from 27a899e to 558103e Compare March 4, 2015 10:11
neonichu added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2015
@neonichu neonichu merged commit 563225d into master Mar 4, 2015
@neonichu neonichu deleted the fix-static-binaries-check branch March 4, 2015 12:15
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.

0.36 RC1 is too restrictive about transitively included static libs
2 participants