opentofu 1.6.0-alpha2 (new formula) #149678
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
go
b-reich
changed the title
github-actions
bot
added
the
automerge-skip
p-linnane
changed the title
|
We'll probably wait until the first stable unless there's a desperate need for something earlier, but thanks for getting this going! |
| # Needs libraries at runtime: | ||
| # /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.29' not found (required by node) | ||
| fails_with gcc: "5" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is this about and is it still relevant? Is it shipping a secret node somewhere?
We're an open source package manager that builds from source, and GLIBCXX errors often suggest something prebuilt.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Carried over from our terraform formula. Not sure if it's still relevant.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it's because the prebuilt protobuf?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would be good to try and remove it and see if it breaks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(but can be after this PR is merged)
@Bo98 I reckon there kinda is a desperate need at this point and it's a special-case as we'll 100% be packaging the stable release, despite this not having had one yet. |
|
I don't see how deprecating Terraform is "desperate", and it's not even known if all dependents even support OpenTofu yet given the first alpha release was days ago and it's a separate registry that doesn't have guaranteed uptime yet. But I do agree that I don't have a problem shipping an alpha/beta releases for things that have no stable release so I'm fine with merging if it's needed. It would however be useful to know if anyone has tested OpenTofu with the dependents we have and if everything works fine, particularly given it seems to be that the "need" here is an immediate mass migration which would be a stable -> alpha switch. |
opentofu: update build & livecheck, allow unstable
I don't think it is either but I do think given all the conversation around it right now: it would be more useful to people if this happens at a similar time.
Agreed.
That's not going to happen until we've verified everything works fine. |
Ok, my proposal then is that any form of migration happens in a single PR rather than several, so we don't have half of Homebrew/core use one and the other half use the other. Given the low number of dependents, this should not be a problem in terms of CI time. |
@Bo98 Works for me 👍🏻. CC @chenrui333 @iMichka and any other @Homebrew/maintainers who care about this. |
chenrui333
added
ready to merge
github-actions
bot
added
the
CI-published-bottle-commits
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
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>?PR ist WIP, opentofu is still in alpha