-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
pkgconf: drop-in replacement for pkg-config
#194885
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggest retiring pkg-config
already too. i.e. Let's delete it and add a formula rename for pkg-config -> pkgconf
.
That's a bit complicated as audit doesn't like usage of old names / aliases. Assuming audit is not changed, either need to:
|
We can just add a temporary exception for |
Am OK with this PR given In terms of switching our uses to
Merging via renames and merging via alias however works completely differently. One uses the migrator mechanism and one doesn't. So will need to carefully test it. I expect anything we do here to be "special", which may indeed mean adjusting things in |
0dd60d2
to
c1fa60d
Compare
c1fa60d
to
60a8a3a
Compare
At least ❯ brew outdated pkg-config
pkgconf (0.29.2_3) < 2.3.0_1 Though that also means the old version may remain for users who avoid upgrades. |
For alias option, probably need Homebrew/brew#18675 in stable tag before continuing. |
I guess one possible issue is if we update shim as a user that still has old https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/Library/Homebrew/shims/mac/super/pkg-config#L5 Though, perhaps we shouldn't be using the explicit path. It does cause Maybe using the |
fab6337
to
b14c9b1
Compare
Alias support available in 4.4.4. I think Only bug I see is |
LGTM. CC @Homebrew/core for additional feedback. |
I don't think we should do this. It's not a formula rename, it's another formula that we're migrating to. I feel vaguely uneasy but OK about the
@cho-m can you make sure you've tested this locally? Want to ensure that this is robust before this is merged. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fine with me when @cho-m is 👍🏻 and has tested upgrade path locally.
At least the basic usage is all fine from tap. Testing without revision on
|
@cho-m sounds good, thanks! |
Will rebase due to merging my Homebrew/brew PR which will probably cause syntax failure. Then can merge. |
b14c9b1
to
2ddcf80
Compare
🤖 An automated task has requested bottles to be published to this PR. |
is there any context as to why this was done? this seems to be the PR that deleted |
See discussion at #182175 |
The change shouldn't have any notable effect for the vast majority of users (except one incident with GitHub Actions that was caused by GitHub themselves which they have since fixed). We added aliases so If you face any regressions let us know. |
HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>
, where<formula>
is the name of the formula you're submitting?brew test <formula>
, where<formula>
is the name of the formula you're submitting?brew audit --strict <formula>
(after doingHOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>
)? If this is a new formula, does it passbrew audit --new <formula>
?