build the binaries on our own #15
Conversation
whyrusleeping
force-pushed
the
build-ourselves
branch
4 times, most recently
from
1be236c
to
d25d7e5
Compare
|
@whyrusleeping how ready is this? Need to change some of the build process to accommodate for the features in #14 |
|
it works for building the go-ipfs binaries (and could be easily extended to other go binaries). but the paths referencing the binary locations will need to be updated. What do you need? |
|
@whyrusleeping rebase over @dignifiedquire's merged PR? |
|
@whyrusleeping this LGTM. |
|
@whyrusleeping need to change some things around how the json files are generated and moved. |
whyrusleeping
force-pushed
the
build-ourselves
branch
from
d25d7e5
to
c356c46
Compare
|
@whyrusleeping just checked, looks usable so far, but missing file extensions in the links |
|
Binaries (except on windows) don't have file extensions. |
|
@whyrusleeping but the file you ship has, e.g. |
|
@whyrusleeping what's the current state of this? |
| @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ | |||
| darwin 386 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This applies for ipfs and other binaries as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, okay. I just picked a few that seemed reasonable, i'll remove it. But all of these binaries are supported by the go compiler. Which do you think should be kept?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hold on, i think we do need darwin 386. I remember running into problems in pre-Yosemite with the mac mini and having to recompile as 386.
If the go team has it there still, it's there for a reason. Let's keep it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(to be clear, i understand that osx has been supposed to run only on amd64 for years now, but have seen this specific problem. Until golang disallows darwin 386 as a target, I think we should continue to have it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(there is also the possibility of suppressing it from the distributions page, if we think "almost all users wont need it and it will be confusing". i twill still be available in the version file listing itself)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mmkay, i left it in.
|
@whyrusleeping I'm afraid not all is working yet, fs-repo-migrations and ipfs-update don't build at all for me, also some of the builds for go-ipfs are failed for me. See the attached gist for details https://gist.github.com/Dignifiedquire/8e8da57025f2377d05c9 |
| if [ -z "$repopath" ] | ||
| then | ||
| fail "checkoutVersion: no repo to check out specified" | ||
| fi |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's more idiomatic to write something like:
test -n "$repopath" || fail "checkoutVersion: no repo to check out specified"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
awesome, i knew there had to be a better way
|
Current version viewable at http://v04x.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmP85XXsJoAejv77hcua4mwnkcYUmFAVA2uLmcYU455ttk/index.html |
|
@whyrusleeping as you can see the platforms is empty for |
|
|
|
Ready for the first round? http://v04x.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUCqDJ2dVkdfiMrkgsM7PYNVL91GY8LdvpitxKL71biRp/ |
🎉 |
|
@dignifiedquire awesome :) |
|
@jbenet @whyrusleeping can we merge this to master for now? I'd rather do the rest in smaller PRs |
build the binaries on our own
This changes the build code to build the binaries from source ourselves for each platform.