faircamp: fix source archive sha256

[themissingcow]

Faircamp is built from a Codeberg tag source archive. For unknown reasons, the sha of the 0.11.0 archive changed recently:

https://post.lurk.org/@freebliss/111796021611406917

This commit resets the sha to that of the currently available source archive. This seems, for now, to be stable. It can be verified as follows:

curl https://codeberg.org/simonrepp/faircamp/archive/0.11.0.tar.gz | shasum -a 256 -

I wasn't sure whether the bottle do section needed updating, as this wasn't a version bump (the existing bottles are valid), so have left them as-is for now.

• Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
• Have you ensured that your commits follow the commit style guide?
• Have you checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same formula update/change?
• Have you built your formula locally with HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Is your test running fine brew test <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Does your build pass brew audit --strict <formula> (after doing HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>)? If this is a new formula, does it pass brew audit --new <formula>?

---

[github-actions]

Thanks for contributing to Homebrew! 🎉 It looks like you're having trouble with a CI failure. See our contribution guide for help. You may be most interested in the section on dealing with CI failures. You can find the CI logs in the Checks tab of your pull request.

[themissingcow]

The test failures seem expected:

    * stable sha256 changed without the url/version also changing; please create an issue upstream to rule out malicious circumstances and to find out why the file changed.

Can anyone advise as to how to proceed? This thread with the upstream maintainer explains the situation and intended remediation actions.

[simonrepp]

Faircamp maintainer here, I ran dozens of checks yesterday to confirm that malicious circumstances for the sha256 change can be pretty much ruled out. The hash change occured with very high probability due to a change in how the tarball is generated/compressed through forgejo at codeberg - this reflects similar incidents at gitea (go-gitea/gitea#26620) and even github (https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/45830) last year. Going forward with future releases we will probably have manually uploaded source tarballs to ensure checksum stability, but until then it would be great if installability of faircamp via brew was restored by approving the hash change. Thanks for your time and efforts!

[chenrui333]

@themissingcow yeah, it is fine, you can ignore that bot message.

@simonrepp thanks for confirming the re-tagging.

[github-actions]

@chenrui333 has requested bottles to be published to this PR.