Skip to content

Comments

Updates for libretro CI#356

Open
zoltanvb wants to merge 2 commits intoaudetto:masterfrom
zoltanvb:master
Open

Updates for libretro CI#356
zoltanvb wants to merge 2 commits intoaudetto:masterfrom
zoltanvb:master

Conversation

@zoltanvb
Copy link

Here are some changes that enabled finally to get all currently configured 7 builds compiling (linux 32/64, windows 32/64, android, ios, macos) https://git.libretro.com/warmenhoven/applewin/-/pipelines/46992

  • enabled submodule usage in .gitlab-ci.yml -- this one shouldn't disturb anyone

I hope also other changes can be taken:

  • changed xxd invocation - old xxd versions do not support -n and will stop the build process, the output seems to be the same though as I checked a few files
  • changed relative symlinks - those break when cloning the repo somewhere not on Github
  • one addition for pcap/slirp was needed for MacOS compilation in the libretro env

- enabled submodule usage
- changed xxd invocation (old xxd instances do not support -n, the output seems to be the same though)
- changed relative symlinks - those break when cloning the repo somewhere not on Github
- one addition for pcap/slirp was needed for MacOS compilation in the libretro env
target_link_libraries(appleii PUBLIC
yaml
minizip
${PCAP_LIBRARIES}
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This can't be here. A lot effort went into allowing the static build to work.

This is anyway a static library, so it should not require these symbols, which are already added to each target project.

I'd rather put here all the static or dynamic libraries needed, but I had an argument with cmake and I lost it.

What is the exact problem?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When the extra libpcap detection was needed, it did not propagate to source/frontends/libretro. I have changed the approach, is it more acceptable this way?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants