Add support for gomobile

[acouvreur]

Add support for gomobile builder https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/mobile/cmd/gomobile

It can produce artifacts for android and ios as .aar and .xcframework archives respectively. It would be a nice addition to support that!

I think it could be a dedicated builder type builder: gomobile

Right now it is not possible to properly use it with the go builder because targets are not supported:

builds:
  - id: ios
    dir: pkg/mobile
    tool: gomobile
    command: bind -v -target=ios -o build/ios/mypackage.xcframework ./
    targets: [ ios ]
    hooks:
      pre:
        - go install golang.org/x/mobile/cmd/gomobile@latest
        - gomobile init
  - id: android
    dir: pkg/mobile
    tool: gomobile
    command: gomobile -v -target=android -androidapi 21 -javapkg com.myorg.mypackage  -o build/android/dithering.aar ./
    targets: [ android ]
    hooks:
        pre:
          - go install golang.org/x/mobile/cmd/gomobile@latest
          - gomobile init

From gomobile build --help:

For -target android, if an AndroidManifest.xml is defined in the
package directory, it is added to the APK output. Otherwise, a default
manifest is generated. By default, this builds a fat APK for all supported
instruction sets (arm, 386, amd64, arm64). A subset of instruction sets can
be selected by specifying target type with the architecture name. E.g.
-target=android/arm,android/386.

For Apple -target platforms, gomobile must be run on an OS X machine with
Xcode installed.

By default, -target ios will generate an XCFramework for both ios
and iossimulator. Multiple Apple targets can be specified, creating a "fat"
XCFramework with each slice. To generate a fat XCFramework that supports
iOS, macOS, and macCatalyst for all supportec architectures (amd64 and arm64),
specify -target ios,macos,maccatalyst. A subset of instruction sets can be
selectged by specifying the platform with an architecture name. E.g.
-target=ios/arm64,maccatalyst/arm64.

[caarlos0]

oh, that's cool! gonna have to look into that, but might be a good one yes!

if you feel like working on it, feel free to PR :)

[acouvreur]

I tried to do it when I opened the discussion, but I did not succeed.