You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 11, 2025. It is now read-only.
I know that bindle was designed with WASM in mind. But I thought I'd just toss out something to think about. Bindle currently has no way to represent parcel's that are equivalent binaries for different CPU ISAs. For example, what if you build the same binary for x86_64 and aarch64? How should the client know which to download?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The feature selection section in the label spec should provide a starting point for this.
I think that if we specify some standard label / feature keys, this could be solved such as when requesting the bindle and a desired value for the label (in this case the architecture), the client would get the proper artifact.
@radu-matei Indeed. I had a similar thought. However, I'm worried that this will become overloaded with other concerns like build versioning (#266) and build variants (#269). All three of these concerns are vying for the same space.
I know that bindle was designed with WASM in mind. But I thought I'd just toss out something to think about. Bindle currently has no way to represent parcel's that are equivalent binaries for different CPU ISAs. For example, what if you build the same binary for x86_64 and aarch64? How should the client know which to download?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: