Marco Schumacher

> for this the entry points would need to be added to the package json exports Indeed. But this is not Vite's concern, right? It should probably be mentioned in...

I have added some docs and another check. Is there anything obvious missing?

@bluwy I see that the to-be-discussed label has been added. How does that work? I'm happy to discuss any open questions.

Alright, let me know if I can contribute/clarify/justify something or if you require changes. Thanks!

> The solution proposed in #4530 seems to be more flexible, with the possibility of specifying different formats and UMD names for different lib entries True, it's a bit more...

Possibly the UMD (and IIFE) case should be covered better in this PR as well. Currently you would see an error when trying to have multiple entrypoints and one of...

Haven't heard anything for quite some time. @Niputi @bluwy?

I have rebased the changes onto current main now. Still awaiting the team's feedback, but the p3-significant label is probably a good sign 😁

Outline for possible multi entries support for umd and iife: https://github.com/schummar/vite/commit/22fda780ec135b14f4d0f66b2f04496e629f7bfb Needs fine tuning obviously, but works in principle. With the expected downside of course, that no code splitting takes...

@drewloomer that's a limitation of Rollup (see https://github.com/rollup/rollup/issues/2072), which we might be able to work around. I have described a possible solution before (https://github.com/vitejs/vite/pull/7047#issuecomment-1094334777, https://github.com/vitejs/vite/pull/7047#issuecomment-1217258714) but it will create redundant...