Build targets from mojo_base on iOS

build/all.gyp

 # Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
 # Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 # found in the LICENSE file.
 
 {
   'variables': {
     # A hook that can be overridden in other repositories to add additional
     # compilation targets to 'All'. Only used on Android.
     'android_app_targets%': [],
   },
@@ skipping 21 matching lines @@
         '../ui/accessibility/accessibility.gyp:*',
         '../ui/base/ui_base.gyp:*',
         '../ui/display/display.gyp:display_unittests',
         '../ui/snapshot/snapshot.gyp:*',
         '../url/url.gyp:*',
       ],
       'conditions': [
         ['OS=="ios"', {
           'dependencies': [
             '../ios/ios.gyp:*',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_common_lib',

[qsr, 2014/09/05 08:27:32]

why don't you put all of mojo_base here?

[blundell, 2014/09/05 08:33:11]

mojo_js_bindings_lib has a dependency on v8, which doesn't build on iOS. James
had previously been against the idea of putting dependencies of the mojo_base
target in a !iOS conditional.

[qsr, 2014/09/05 08:36:04]

:( Ok, I guess that means someone on the iOS team must make sure not target fell
into the cracks.

[viettrungluu, 2014/09/05 16:59:06]

I agree that this is a little unfortunate. What bots is this going to build on,
and who's going to be responsible for keeping them green?

(Alternatively, I wonder if mojo_js_bindings_lib belongs in mojo_base at all....
It does seem a little suspect to me.)

[blundell, 2014/09/08 08:59:52]

It will build on the iOS bots on the main Chromium waterfall, so the
responsibility will be the same as with other main waterfall bots. The main
pitfall that I see with having this hardcoded list of targets rather than
mojo_base is that as new targets get added to mojo_base.gyp that should be built
on iOS no one will think to look here and update this list. The responsibility
of finding such targets and having them be built on iOS would then fall to the
team maintaining the iOS port. I agree that it's far from ideal, but I'd far
rather have this situation than have no Mojo targets at all building on iOS in
Chromium. Alternatively, if there's agreement, I'm more than happy to fiddle
with the definition of mojo_base on iOS such that iOS can depend on that target.
It's depended on by content_renderer, so unless we want to change the definition
of mojo_base.gyp, it does belong there.

+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_common_unittests',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_cpp_bindings',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_public_bindings_unittests',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_public_environment_unittests',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_public_system_perftests',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_public_system_unittests',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_public_test_utils',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_public_utility_unittests',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_system',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_system_impl',
+            '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_system_unittests',
             '../ui/gfx/gfx_tests.gyp:gfx_unittests',
             '../ui/ui_unittests.gyp:ui_unittests',
           ],
         }],
         ['OS=="android"', {
           'dependencies': [
             '../content/content_shell_and_tests.gyp:content_shell_apk',
             '../mojo/mojo.gyp:mojo_shell_apk',
             '../mojo/mojo_base.gyp:mojo_test_apk',
             '<@(android_app_targets)',
@@ skipping 1254 matching lines @@
           'dependencies': [
             '../ui/views/examples/examples.gyp:views_examples_with_content_exe',
             '../ui/views/views.gyp:views',
             '../ui/views/views.gyp:views_unittests',
           ],
         },  # target_name: macviews_builder
       ],  # targets
     }],  # os=='mac' and toolkit_views==1
   ],  # conditions
 }