-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
XCFramework for SwiftCurrent_Testing #110
Comments
For the layman, why would we do this? What does using an XCFramework for this buy us? |
It's just another distribution mechanism. I personally feel people should use package managers for a whole host of reasons. That said, there are reasons why people avoid them. For those who want to link to a framework themselves we provide a static framework to link against. |
@morganzellers we'll likely want to take a gander at docs to make this explainable to consumers, but writing this to remind myself as well. |
@nickkaczmarek I'll take a look today and see if there's an appropriate place |
@morganzellers we may also want to see if there is a way we can zip it up as not a framework in our release. |
@nickkaczmarek that's a good point... I'm gonna chase that down for a bit |
So after looking into this, I thought we may be able to archive our test target or wrap it in a project file but it looks like there's not really support for that. Would providing individual test files zipped be of use? I'm not sure. |
@morganzellers I think it would be worth doing a regular zip on this because we're sort of supporting an edge case where someone might want to use the project, but isn't interested in using a package manager. |
We will not be offering an XCFramework for the testing package due to the feature differences between See PR #149 for more context. While we will not offer a static framework file for the testing package, we do so for the three main packages, |
We've got other XCFrameworks for all of our packages except for SwiftCurrent_Testing. It would be good to add that as well, if we can.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: