-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.2k
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
v2.9.5 brew binary somehow getting replaced by dirty #3769
Comments
Maybe related: |
Do we need to run
|
@crunchtime-ali could I please ask for your help? |
@alexec Sure. I will have a look at it tomorrow. I think I included the static files and they should be included in the bottles which are built and distributed automatically as well. |
@crunchtime-ali I think the fix is that |
Let's fix the formula instead. I am calling |
I checked why the git status is |
Can I push to understand why we can’t use the same binary we attach to the releases page? Rather than rebuild, is there anyway we can build the correct binary as part of the Makefile? |
From https://docs.brew.sh/Acceptable-Formulae#we-dont-like-binary-formulae:
Yes, I checked why the git status is dirty and was able to determine that it considers the tree to be dirty because of |
We meet that requirement.
We meet that requirement. The binary we attach to the release page is built from source. I think they are saying - you must not just attach random binaries - you must be able to demonstrate how they are built. I think it would be acceptable to use the binary. |
Homebrew's requirement is that formulae must be built from source by the Homebrew CI. This ensures that working builds can be reproduced for whatever reason, especially by users who don't want to trust any supplied binaries. |
@gromgit can you please point me to the page that says that? Thank you. |
It's in the passage itself:
i.e. the formula build itself should start with the source code, not simply package prebuilt binaries. |
@gromgit - thank you - I can see that that - while what you say is not explicit - it is implied. @crunchtime-ali I can see that we need to build one binaries for each type of OS-X. That makes a lot of sense to me. I don't really care where they're built, as long as they're reliable. Can I ask you to create a PR to ignore the Brew files that make the build dirty? Our I suggest we add a replace the Thoughts? |
I created #3801. Maybe we should call the variable @gromgit Thanks for chiming in |
Still a problem with v2.10.0
|
@crunchtime-ali FYI - this is still incorrect. |
|
I thin this will be fixed for v2.11.0 |
@alexec I will check it out once 2.11.0 is released. |
Available for testing in v2.11.0-rc1. |
I just tested this with Output of
I will try to look into it until Saturday. |
24c7783 is actually master and this is very risky and urgently needs to be fixe. Marking as P1 regression. |
Cancel the panic: /usr/local/bin/argo version
argo: latest+854444e.dirty
BuildDate: 2020-09-03T04:18:43Z
GitCommit: 854444e47ac00d146cb83d174049bfbb2066bfb2
GitTreeState: dirty
GitTag: v2.10.1
GoVersion: go1.15
Compiler: gc
Platform: darwin/amd64 |
Summary
brew install argo
should give me a working binary - but the one I actually get does not have the static files.Diagnostics
From brew:
From releases page:
Message from the maintainers:
Impacted by this bug? Give it a 👍. We prioritise the issues with the most 👍.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: