Skip to content

fixing json config #1009

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.

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 4 commits into from
Sep 8, 2016
Merged

fixing json config #1009

merged 4 commits into from
Sep 8, 2016

Conversation

mairaw
Copy link
Contributor

@mairaw mairaw commented Sep 6, 2016

/cc @blackdwarf

I've noticed we had the wrong config in this topic. Also adding a link to the project.json reference.

@qinezh
Copy link
Contributor

qinezh commented Sep 6, 2016

Open Publishing Build Service: The pull request content has been published and here are some sample preview links:

@@ -45,11 +45,11 @@ compilation process to be incremental:
- not load compilation tools from PATH (for example, resgen, compilers)
- use only known compilers (csc, vbc, fsc)

In order to build an executable application, you need a special configuration section in your project.json file:
In order to build an executable application instead of a DLL, you need a [special configuration](project-json.md#emitentrypoint) section in your project.json file:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Wouldn't "library" instead of "DLL" be better here, since applications in .Net Core are usually also DLL files?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Earlier in the topic we say that by default dotnet will build a binary with a DLL extension. I wanted to call out here explicitly how to change that and get an "exe" instead. @blackdwarf is this accurate?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mairaw yes and no. I think there are two questions here:

  1. How do I produce a runnable artifact, e.g. an application?
  2. How do I produce an "exe" file, that is, a native executable that I can "just run" on a given operating system?

For #1 above, it is true, you need the emitEntryPoint setting, but, as @svick mentions, you would still get a DLL.

For #2, the only way is to create a self-contained deployment.

Hope this makes sense. In general, I would go with @svick's suggestion and just say "library" instead of a "DLL".

Copy link
Contributor Author

@mairaw mairaw Sep 7, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the clarification @blackdwarf. So, do we also need to change the emitEntryPoint doc? It says: "true to create an executable; false to produce a .dll file. The default is false." From your explanation, I would get a DLL whether it's true or false.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yep, good point, that needs to be changed as well.

@qinezh
Copy link
Contributor

qinezh commented Sep 6, 2016

Open Publishing Build Service: The pull request content has been published and here are some sample preview links:

@blackdwarf
Copy link

LGTM modulo comments

@qinezh
Copy link
Contributor

qinezh commented Sep 7, 2016

Open Publishing Build Service: The pull request content has been published and here are some sample preview links:

Also fencing the code block
@stevehoag
Copy link
Contributor

@mairaw LGTM, but it looks like the build is stuck?

@qinezh
Copy link
Contributor

qinezh commented Sep 8, 2016

Open Publishing Build Service: The pull request content has been published and here are some sample preview links:

@qinezh
Copy link
Contributor

qinezh commented Sep 8, 2016

Open Publishing Build Service: The pull request content has been published and here are some sample preview links:

@stevehoag
Copy link
Contributor

:shipit:

@mairaw mairaw merged commit 60d953a into master Sep 8, 2016
@mairaw mairaw deleted the mairaw-patch-4 branch September 8, 2016 22:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants