Support macos-aarch64 as a platform keyword
#60
Conversation
src/artifact_choosing.rs
Outdated
| "macos-aarch64", | ||
| "darwin-aarch64", | ||
| "macos-x86_64", | ||
| "darwin-x86_64", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we keep the macos-x86_64 and darwin-x86_64 here? I think we could just remove them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah that should be possible actually - since the fallback "macos" will be picked anyways
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fair to assume that if there are any disambiguated binaries, they'll probably all be disambiguated (rather than having macos-arm64 and macos, you'd have macos-arm64 and macos-x86_64 to make sure that both names are clear).
So I'm onboard with that as well; don't need to do it in this PR if you don't want to, though.
src/artifact_choosing.rs
Outdated
| "macos-aarch64", | ||
| "darwin-aarch64", | ||
| "macos-x86_64", | ||
| "darwin-x86_64", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fair to assume that if there are any disambiguated binaries, they'll probably all be disambiguated (rather than having macos-arm64 and macos, you'd have macos-arm64 and macos-x86_64 to make sure that both names are clear).
So I'm onboard with that as well; don't need to do it in this PR if you don't want to, though.
|
@JohnnyMorganz all that's needed is for the CLA check to pass. There used to be a bot comment that told what the contributor needed to do but it looks like it's not working properly. I think if you comment "I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA" to the PR, then we can re-run the check and that should do it. |
|
CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes. |
|
I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA |
StyLua produces macOS M1 binaries using the
macos-aarch64name, rather thanmacos-arm64.We add in
macos-aarch64as a platform keyword so it doesn't fall back to the Rosetta x86_64 binary