I originally thought #435 was going to be used here, but that winds up not working out because we can't control the build order of librubyfmt (and therefore Ruby) vs. this build script. I think it's possible we could avoid that if we restructured librubyfmt due to the way cargo:rustc-link-lib works. But that's a bit more than I want to bite off right now.
Instead, we have this PR, which the included comment lays out the rationale for.
froydnj
commented
1 year ago
I originally thought #435 was going to be used here, but that winds up not working out because we can't control the build order of
librubyfmt(and therefore Ruby) vs. this build script. I think it's possible we could avoid that if we restructuredlibrubyfmtdue to the waycargo:rustc-link-libworks. But that's a bit more than I want to bite off right now.Instead, we have this PR, which the included comment lays out the rationale for.