Make ILAsm and ILDasm packages standalone. Clean up Microsoft.NET.Sdk.IL

[jkoritzinsky]

Now that ILAsm and ILDasm are standalone as of #25144, this PR updates the Microsoft.NETCore.ILAsm and Microsoft.NETCore.ILDasm packages to not depend on the CoreCLR package.

Additionally, this PR also cleans up the Microsoft.NET.Sdk.IL sdk since standalone ILAsm and ILDasm allows a lot of the MSBuild logic to be removed.

[Nirmal4G]

I see that they refer the packages from NuGet. For an SDK, the tools shouldn't be self contained (to allow better portability, not depending on NuGet)?

[Nirmal4G]

Since the tools themselves are portable now, why not put them inside the SDK package, preferably a Tools folder besides the Sdk folder.

[jkoritzinsky]

The tools are still architecture-specific native tools, so can't just package on one platform build. I don't think the MSBuild support for SDK resolution via NuGet supports runtime.json-based architecture specific packages, so we likely need to keep using the NuGet packages.

Since the <PackageReference>s are marked with IsImplicitlyDefined="true", they won't show up to the user and are encapsulated in the SDK.

[Nirmal4G]

so can't just package on one platform build

I see. Since, it's a private package, this does not matter. But you can also just do this:

Tools\<runtime-id>\<files>

Then again, the downside is, the native assets for every runtime-id would be there, contributing to the package size. You might not want other platform/arch assets on the platform/arch you're running from.

[Nirmal4G]

Anyway, since we have the compiler written in .NET, It would be nice to have IL tools and decompiler written in .NET too!

[jkoritzinsky]

cc: @tannergooding @ericstj

[tannergooding]

LGTM.

Have we validated S.R.CS.Unsafe.ilproj builds correctly with this?

[jkoritzinsky]

I did a local build with a test project and it restored the package correctly.

[mletterle]

I noticed this fix has started showing up in 5.0 alpha builds on https://dotnetfeed.blob.core.windows.net/dotnet-coreclr but not on 3.1 preview builds, is this expected to ship in 3.1?

[jkoritzinsky]

This is not expected to ship in 3.1. I don’t think the underlying change that enabled this is in 3.1.