Skip to content

Fix handling publishing cross-arch pack packages #15678

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 28, 2025
Merged

Fix handling publishing cross-arch pack packages #15678

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions src/Microsoft.DotNet.Arcade.Sdk/tools/Publish.proj
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -114,12 +114,12 @@
Integration with Microsoft.DotNet.Build.Tasks.Installers: Publish packages of the following formats as well.
These are arch-specific Visual Studio insertion packages. As they're Windows-only, they only include architecture in the name:
- VS.Redist.Common.*.$(TargetArchitecture).*.nupkg
- VS.Redist.Common.*.$(TargetArchitecture)-*.*.nupkg
- VS.Redist.Common.*.*_$(TargetArchitecture).*.nupkg
These packages are always non-shipping, so only look there.
-->
<Artifact Include="$(ArtifactsNonShippingPackagesDir)**/VS.Redist.Common.*.$(TargetArchitecture).*.nupkg" IsShipping="false" Kind="Package" />
<Artifact Include="$(ArtifactsNonShippingPackagesDir)**/VS.Redist.Common.*.$(TargetArchitecture)-*.*.nupkg" IsShipping="false" Kind="Package" />
<Artifact Include="$(ArtifactsNonShippingPackagesDir)**/VS.Redist.Common.*.*_$(TargetArchitecture).*.nupkg" IsShipping="false" Kind="Package" />
Copy link
Member

@NikolaMilosavljevic NikolaMilosavljevic Mar 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would we ever have packages with the old naming model, i.e. does it make sense to keep both patterns?

Copy link
Member Author

@jkoritzinsky jkoritzinsky Mar 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No we won't. I misread the pattern when I added this and got it wrong.


<!--
In the VMR, don't publish packages that didn't match the above conditions externally.
Expand Down
Loading