[bullet3] Remove vcpkg_fail_port_install.#22729
Conversation
The supports expression and the portfile.cmake disagreed. Supports: !((windows | linux) & (arm | uwp)) Portfile: osx | !(arm | arm64 | uwp) If we demorgan the supports expression we get something closer to the portfile: !(windows | linux) | !(arm | uwp) If we take "!(windows | linux)" to mean that the author meant "osx", and assume arm64 implies arm, we end up with: osx | !(arm | uwp) In support of: microsoft#21502
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You have modified or added at least one vcpkg.json where a "license" field is missing.
If you feel able to do so, please consider adding a "license" field to the following files:
ports/bullet3/vcpkg.json
Valid values for the license field are listed at https://spdx.org/licenses/
FrankXie05
added
the
info:needs-maintainer-attention
|
Thanks for the review @FrankXie05 :D |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You have modified or added at least one vcpkg.json where a "license" field is missing.
If you feel able to do so, please consider adding a "license" field to the following files:
ports/bullet3/vcpkg.json
Valid values for the license field are listed at https://spdx.org/licenses/
|
@BillyONeal After you delete the content of the baseline, whether to overwrite the content of the git tree of |
FrankXie05
removed
the
info:needs-maintainer-attention
ci.baseline.txt isn't part of the version database. |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
FrankXie05
added
the
info:needs-maintainer-attention
|
@BillyONeal oh, my bad. I don't see you modifying the baseline halfway through。 |
Yeah, I didn't think about it until @JackBoosY's comment on another PR so I double checked before clicking the merge button here :) |
|
Sorry to comment on a closed PR but why is arm disabled? There shouldn't be any issues with building for Android as it is listed as supported on their github. |
I don't think most of what we've done in terms of determining what ports support what has considered Android; I observe that MacOS also allows ARM which may have been done for iOS? With this change I was trying to keep the behavior of the port the same; if someone shows that it works elsewhere a PR changing the supports expression to be consistent with what upstream does would be welcome. |
3 participants
The supports expression and the portfile.cmake disagreed.
Supports:
!((windows | linux) & (arm | uwp))Portfile:
osx | !(arm | arm64 | uwp)If we demorgan the supports expression we get something closer to the portfile:
!(windows | linux) | !(arm | uwp)If we take "
!(windows | linux)" to mean that the author meant "osx", and assume arm64 implies arm, we end up with:osx | !(arm | uwp)
In support of: #21502