Create Microsoft.DotNet.ILCompiler.LLVM.props

[kant2002]

Missing bit fo #2196

You would still required to have

<KnownILCompilerPack Update="Microsoft.DotNet.ILCompiler" 
       TargetFramework="net7.0"
       ILCompilerPackNamePattern="runtime.**RID**.Microsoft.DotNet.ILCompiler.LLVM"
       ILCompilerPackVersion="7.0.0-preview.5.23113.1"
       ILCompilerRuntimeIdentifiers="browser-wasm;linux-musl-x64;linux-x64;win-x64;linux-arm;linux-arm64;linux-musl-arm;linux-musl-arm64;osx-arm64;osx-x64;win-arm;win-arm64;win-x86"
       />

[SingleAccretion]

I need to understand why the EmitLegacyAssetsFileItems workaround did not work.

Do you have a binlog of the failure?

[kant2002]

You can add <PublishAot>true</PublishAot> and you will see an issue.
Process of resolving host/runtime ILC packages depends on the KnownILCompilerPack. If you set PublishAot=true, that’s required to have set IlcHostPackagePath and RuntimePackagePath and point them to proper locations.

if you do not specify <PublishAot>true</PublishAot> then EmitLegacyAssetsFileItems indeed helps.

[SingleAccretion]

PublishAot breaks things

I see. In the current state of things, this is "intentional", PublishAot is used as a discriminator for "doing SDK-based publish" versus "doing package-based publish".

Once we merge enough of upstream this will, of course, change.

Process of resolving host/runtime ILC packages depends on the KnownILCompilerPack. If you set PublishAot=true, that’s required to have set IlcHostPackagePath and RuntimePackagePath and point them to proper locations.

This is concerning. Am I correct this means this change doesn't fix the publishing as-is, and you need to override KnownILCompilerPack as well (how would you do that)?

[kant2002]

I put snippet in the original comment to PR. That’s all what’s needed.

[SingleAccretion]

Okay, I will need some time to internalize how the SDK-driven publishing works. The goal would of course be that the user doesn't need to override anything manually.

[kant2002]

I hope that my suggestion dotnet/runtime#73678 (comment) would be approved. That’s all what we need from what I see. And we are have default experience “as documented”.

[kant2002]

@SingleAccretion I think we can safely merge this, since it works in 2 places 😄

[SingleAccretion]

LGTM, thank you!

Sorry for the wait; the logic flow here was not straightforward to untangle.