lib/generate/posts.ts

@@ -37,10 +37,8 @@ async function generatePostFromFile(postPath: string, additionalMetadata: object
 
 	if (!(<PostMetadata>page.metadata).excerpt) {
 		const parts = page.text.split("<!-- excerpt-end -->");
-		if (parts.length > 1) {
 		(<PostMetadata>page.metadata).excerpt = parts[0];
 	}
-	}
 
 	return page;
 }

site/includes/article-listing.html.ejs

@@ -10,11 +10,9 @@
     </h2>
     <%- include("article-meta.html.ejs", { metadata: post.metadata }) %>
     <div class="article-content" itemprop="description">
-        <%- post.metadata.excerpt ?? post.text %>
+        <%- post.metadata.excerpt %>
     </div>
-	<% if (post.metadata.excerpt) { %>
     <p class="read-more-link">
         <a href="<%= post.metadata.permalink%>">Read more...</a>
     </p>
-	<% } %>
 </article>

site/posts/2022-02-23-swift-package-framework.md

@@ -66,5 +66,3 @@ After abandoning that idea, the other, similarly unsuccessful, tactic I tried wa
 That did not work. I don't know why. There seems to be very little visibility (read: none at all) into how Xcode chooses to static versus dynamic linking for Swift packages.
 
 That's where I gave up, so if you have any better ideas, please let me know. At the end of the day, I don't have the energy to spend more time fighting Xcode over 20 megabytes. Oh well. I should probably throw a report into the void that is Feedback Assistant.
-
-**Update:** As of April 2022, I've [resolved](/2022/swift-package-framework-update/) this issue.

site/posts/2022-04-07-swift-package-framework-update.md

@@ -1,13 +0,0 @@
-```
-metadata.title = "Update: Swift Packages and Frameworks"
-metadata.tags = ["swift"]
-metadata.date = "2022-04-07 22:36:42 -0400"
-metadata.shortDesc = ""
-metadata.slug = "swift-package-framework-update"
-```
-
-A while ago I [wrote](/2022/swift-package-framework/) about some trouble I had getting Xcode to cooperate with my efforts to bring my app file size back under control after adding a new Swift Package dependency. Well, I'm happy to say I finally have: the most recent TestFlight build of Tusker has a 6.7MB install size, down from 25MB.
-
-Ultimately I did take the route of turning my framework into a Swift Package. I revisited it because I noticed in another project that local packages inside the same folder as the main project worked perfectly fine. The only difference I found was that the project where it worked used only an `.xcodeproj`, whereas Tusker used an `.xcworkspace`. So, I deleted the (for unrelated reasons, no longer necessary) workspace and found that, after quitting and relaunching Xcode, the local package worked perfectly fine.
-
-I briefly started writing a feedback report, but upon further testing I found that xcworkspaces in general weren't the problem—a new project and workspace worked fine. So, I gave up trying to reproduce it and assumed there was just something weird about the 3.5 year old workspace.