Skip to content

Conversation

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member

Contributes to dotnet/source-build#4944

We need to pack tool shims for all supported platforms which requires these two projects to be built in VMR's build-pass 2.

Verification build (internal): https://dev.azure.com/dnceng/internal/_build/results?buildId=2674425&view=results

@NikolaMilosavljevic NikolaMilosavljevic requested review from a team and wtgodbe as code owners March 31, 2025 20:45
@ghost ghost added the area-infrastructure Includes: MSBuild projects/targets, build scripts, CI, Installers and shared framework label Mar 31, 2025
@NikolaMilosavljevic NikolaMilosavljevic requested review from a team and mmitche March 31, 2025 20:46
"
Condition=" '$(TargetOsName)' == 'win' and '$(DotNetBuild)' == 'true' and ('$(DotNetBuildPass)' == '' or '$(DotNetBuildPass)' == '1') " />

<!-- These projects requires inputs from x64, x86, and arm64 on Windows - therefore in the VMR, we build them in pass 2 -->
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit, but they only require x64 & x86 assets

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will fix - thanks.

@ViktorHofer
Copy link
Member

Wait. Why are we going this direction (BP=2) when we were discussing in the issue that we should just not use the live host for those projects?

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member Author

Wait. Why are we going this direction (BP=2) when we were discussing in the issue that we should just not use the live host for those projects?

Wouldn't we have hosts from two different builds in that case? One live, one restored from, i.e. nuget.org?

I'm fine with either approach, I thought BP=2 made it cleaner.

@mmitche
Copy link
Member

mmitche commented Mar 31, 2025

Wait. Why are we going this direction (BP=2) when we were discussing in the issue that we should just not use the live host for those projects?

Wouldn't we have hosts from two different builds in that case? One live, one restored from, i.e. nuget.org?

I'm fine with either approach, I thought BP=2 made it cleaner.

I believe the thinking was that it doesn't matter all that oftne, and that this already is the case for any tool that doesn't take flow from runtime. They're always shipping n-1.

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member Author

Wait. Why are we going this direction (BP=2) when we were discussing in the issue that we should just not use the live host for those projects?

Wouldn't we have hosts from two different builds in that case? One live, one restored from, i.e. nuget.org?
I'm fine with either approach, I thought BP=2 made it cleaner.

I believe the thinking was that it doesn't matter all that oftne, and that this already is the case for any tool that doesn't take flow from runtime. They're always shipping n-1.

Makes sense. I'll rework this. Will open a new PR.

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member Author

Closing. Will open a new PR with the other approach, proposed in the issue - dotnet/source-build#4944

@dotnet-policy-service dotnet-policy-service bot added this to the 10.0-preview4 milestone Apr 1, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area-infrastructure Includes: MSBuild projects/targets, build scripts, CI, Installers and shared framework

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants