extract: Leave a hint in place of the removed bottles block #17590
Conversation
Kentzo
force-pushed
the
extract-bottle-url
branch
from
f29903f
to
429ad51
Compare
| @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ def run | |||
| result.sub!("class #{class_name} < Formula", "class #{versioned_name} < Formula") | |||
|
|
|||
| # Remove bottle blocks, as they won't work. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can the bottles be used? If not, can you please elaborate: what's the value in noting where one can find them?
Also, brew extract can be used on formulae from taps other than homebrew/core, so this may not be accurate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can the bottles be used?
As in re-used from the original formula? No, because after the extraction the name of the formula gets changed from <formula> to <formula>@<version> and thus the URL that Homebrew uses internally gets changed from docker://ghcr.io/homebrew/core/<name>:<version> to docker://ghcr.io/homebrew/core/<name>/<version>:<version>.
what's the value in noting where one can find them
When the intent is to pin formula for a reproducible build, it's important to archive the bottles as well, so one could use Homebrew (an old version, if necessary) with a custom tap and a custom HOMEBREW_BOTTLE_DOMAIN.
As it stands it's hard / impossible to entirely automate the process, e.g. via imaginary brew extract --include-bottles because:
- Bottles may not be present
- Formula may come from a custom tap
This hint is the next best thing to do as it puts the developer right on track of getting it to work. I'd greatly appreciate it as user.
Perhaps a better solution would be to either document the entire workflow of "taking a snapshot" of a given formula or, at least, document how Homebrew stores and retrieves the bottles.
Also, brew extract can be used on formulae from taps other than homebrew/core, so this may not be accurate.
Right, so I deliberately used the word "might" here :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you just rename the formula to not include the @version part?
As it stands it's hard / impossible to entirely automate the process, e.g. via imaginary
brew extract --include-bottlesbecause:
- Bottles may not be present
- Formula may come from a custom tap
We can simply restrict --include-bottles to homebrew/core formulae, and fail if there are no bottles (or, maybe, still extract the formula and just error on the bottle part). I used to have a custom brew command that just downloaded and extracted bottles here. I stopped using it and I don't think it works anymore, but it could maybe serve as a starting point to implementing something like this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Rylan12 Still there is a problem that Homebrew, being rolling-release package manager, may decide to abandon old bottles.
Instead of --include-bottles I'd rather prever --extract-bottles so I could store them elsewhere and not depend on benevolence of the original formula maintainer.
That being said, while this is under discussion and development I think a hint is a good enough placeholder.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
*please also see this discussion: https://github.com/orgs/Homebrew/discussions/5454
| @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ def run | |||
| result.sub!("class #{class_name} < Formula", "class #{versioned_name} < Formula") | |||
|
|
|||
| # Remove bottle blocks, as they won't work. | |||
| result.sub!(BOTTLE_BLOCK_REGEX, "") | |||
| result.sub!(BOTTLE_BLOCK_REGEX, "# The bottles might be available as oci images at docker://ghcr.io/homebrew/core/#{name}:#{version}") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if, instead of injecting a comment, we output a warning saying "bottles have been removed because XYZ, but they may still be available at this URL if you'd like to extract them". That way the URL is displayed for easy copy/paste without needing to open the new file to find it, and it also doesn't pollute the new file
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This output will be lost with the end of the terminal session while comment stays with the formula forever. And it's easier to script. Perhaps we should do both?
| @@ -63,5 +63,15 @@ | |||
| expect(path).to exist | |||
| expect(Formulary.factory(path).version).to eq "0.2" | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| it "notes the url where bottles might be found", :integration_test do | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Definitely don't need a test for this.
|
@MikeMcQuaid Would you be interested in the PR adding the |
|
@Kentzo can you explain the workflow of how that would work? Bottles are built for a specific formula name/prefix/keg and cannot be used with another name/prefix/keg. |
brew stylewith your changes locally?brew typecheckwith your changes locally?brew testswith your changes locally?