Skip to content

Conversation

daveverwer
Copy link
Member

In the "Common Use Cases" article. It's not ideal here as this article says it's specifically about the .spi.yml file, but I think it's OK as this is where we talk about the build system.

Screenshot 2025-08-04 at 10 30 17@2x

@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla-signed label Aug 4, 2025
@daveverwer daveverwer force-pushed the spi-processing-docs branch from 805864c to 3b8655c Compare August 4, 2025 09:33
@finestructure
Copy link
Member

finestructure commented Aug 4, 2025

I'll add something about SPI_BUILD as well, because we still need this independently from SPI_PROCESSING.

swift-java is short-circuiting JAVA_HOME discovery in order to make dump-package work during validation and analysis on machines that don't have Java installed.

However, in order to actually build the package on a machine the has Java installed, it will have to conditionally re-enable it by skipping the short-circuit if SPI_BUILD is set.

Since it's unlikely we'll ever ship an analysis or validation image with Java installed we really need both variables to offer this kind of control to package authors.

@finestructure
Copy link
Member

It's actually not a critical distinction to have SPI_BUILD set but it makes for a clearer error message in swift-java's build failures until we ship builders with Java installed: swiftlang/swift-java#347

@daveverwer
Copy link
Member Author

The additions look good to me. Merge if you're happy with them. 👍

@finestructure
Copy link
Member

I'd accidentally pushed it to the existing branch instead of a new one. Hard pushed it back and opened a PR instead now!

@daveverwer daveverwer merged commit 754b3ca into main Aug 4, 2025
3 of 5 checks passed
@daveverwer daveverwer deleted the spi-processing-docs branch August 4, 2025 12:16
@finestructure
Copy link
Member

Hold on, CI is failing

@daveverwer
Copy link
Member Author

I thought that was a persistent issue on this repo, it's certainly not related to documentation changes.

It's the setup-swift step that's failing.

@finestructure
Copy link
Member

Yeah, it's clearly not change related but the latest release (1.10.0) did pass CI, so something must have changed in the meantime. I'll take a look.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants