Binary releases

[robrix]

Can this be automated?

/cc @jspahrsummers

• Automating depends on CI #6.

[jspahrsummers]

Travis is great for automating this except that it doesn't have Xcode betas (because NDA blah blah legal bullshit). 😕

So, the answer is, “no while in beta, yes afterward.”

[robrix]

👍

[robrix]

I’m going to (manually) add a binary release once #29 is in.

[jspahrsummers]

Added a binary to 0.4.

[robrix]

🙇 thank you @jspahrsummers

[jarsen]

It looks like the last two releases (0.4.2, and 0.4.3) haven't included binary releases. Are these being ditched now that the mac targets are x86_64 only—which seems to be a workaround for the xcode build issues?

[robrix]

If it depends on manual effort it’s unlikely to happen for a bit. I’m hoping Travis will support Xcode 6.3.2 before WWDC invalidates everything again 😛

[jarsen]

Totally understandable. Wish I could help, but I guess the release uploads aren't something that you can PR unfortunately. Thanks!

[sync]

binary releases for Swift 2.0 is a no go, a release framework complied with Xcode 7 beta 1 won't work with Xcode 7 beta 2 (as we now)

[guidomb]

any chance to add a binary for release 0.4.3?

[guidomb]

Well actually could you make a release for 0.4.4 and add binaries there so projects still working with Swift 1.2 could benefict of not having to compile the dependency?

[robrix]

@guidomb: Unfortunately that wouldn’t work. You get linker errors if you try to link a Swift 1.2 module with a Swift 2.0 module.

[guidomb]

Do you mean if somebody wants to use version 0.4.4 in a Swift 2.0 project?

[robrix]

If 0.4.4 were built with Swift 2, Swift 1.2 projects would be unable to link it. If it were built with Swift 1.2, Swift 2 projects would be unable to link it.

[mdiep]

0.4.4 only works with Swift 1.2 anyways, right? Including a binary won't change that either way.

[sena1or]

3.1.0 release doesn't have a binary :-(