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

Dartium checkout is not compositional #14919

Closed
rmacnak-google opened this issue Nov 7, 2013 · 7 comments
Closed

Dartium checkout is not compositional #14919

rmacnak-google opened this issue Nov 7, 2013 · 7 comments
Labels
area-infrastructure Use area-infrastructure for SDK infrastructure issues, like continuous integration bot changes. P3 A lower priority bug or feature request type-enhancement A request for a change that isn't a bug

Comments

@rmacnak-google
Copy link
Contributor

Running tools/build.py and tools/test.py should do the same thing in a Dartium checkout that it does in a Dart checkout

@ricowind
Copy link
Contributor

No it should not
We are relying on gyp and gclient as our tools for creating our checkouts and build environments.
You don't want a dartium checkout to pull in all our third party dependencies to be able to build and test in the normal way, you want to pull in the stuff you need to actually build dartium. If you want to work on both you should keep two checkouts.


Added Invalid label.

@iposva-google
Copy link
Contributor

Rico, it is an unfortunate consequence that we do need to make VM changes when working on Dartium. So at least the standalone builds should be supported. Otherwise you have to keep ferrying patches back and forth between two otherwise unrelated checkouts. All of the dependencies for the standalone dart binary are already present in the Dartium checkout.

I'll take this as I did have a setup like this before and the needed changes were minimal.


Set owner to @iposva-google.
Removed Type-Defect label.
Added Type-Enhancement, Accepted labels.

@anders-sandholm
Copy link
Contributor

Removed Area-Build label.
Added Area-Infrastructure label.

@iposva-google
Copy link
Contributor

Ryan, is this still an issue?

@rmacnak-google
Copy link
Contributor Author

I haven't needed to do a multi-sided change in a while.

@iposva-google
Copy link
Contributor

Removed Priority-Medium label.
Added Priority-Low label.

@rmacnak-google rmacnak-google added Type-Enhancement P3 A lower priority bug or feature request area-infrastructure Use area-infrastructure for SDK infrastructure issues, like continuous integration bot changes. labels Sep 12, 2014
@kevmoo kevmoo added type-enhancement A request for a change that isn't a bug and removed accepted labels Feb 29, 2016
@iposva-google iposva-google removed their assignment May 31, 2016
@rmacnak-google
Copy link
Contributor Author

Stale.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area-infrastructure Use area-infrastructure for SDK infrastructure issues, like continuous integration bot changes. P3 A lower priority bug or feature request type-enhancement A request for a change that isn't a bug
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants