hack our way around missing libcrypt in cross-compilation
#438
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @reese |
reese
approved these changes
Jun 20, 2023
reese
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 12, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I originally thought #435 was going to be used here, but that winds up not working out because we can't control the build order of
librubyfmt(and therefore Ruby) vs. this build script. I think it's possible we could avoid that if we restructuredlibrubyfmtdue to the waycargo:rustc-link-libworks. But that's a bit more than I want to bite off right now.Instead, we have this PR, which the included comment lays out the rationale for.