-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.4k
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
whatweb 0.5.5 (new formula) #140724
whatweb 0.5.5 (new formula) #140724
Conversation
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. |
Formula/w/whatweb.rb
Outdated
system "gem", "install", "bson" | ||
system "gem", "install", "bson_ext" | ||
system "gem", "install", "mongo" | ||
system "gem", "install", "rchardet" |
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.
These should be checksummed resources, not downloaded at random like this.
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.
added checksummed resources
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.
@oregonpillow @SMillerDev if there's a Gemfile.lock
I think it's reasonable to use that instead, otherwise: yes, I agree.
b39f8ae
to
f7d45c5
Compare
50acc47
to
89fd935
Compare
Formula/w/whatweb.rb
Outdated
"-e", "MANPATH=#{man}" | ||
|
||
# gem 'addressable', '~> 2.8', '>= 2.8.5' | ||
resource "addressable" do |
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.
Put the resource
blocks outside of def install
. Other maintainers may agree but: if this has a Gemfile.lock
it's using, I'm not convinced you need to use a resource
for all of these instead of just using bundle install
.
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.
Previous iterations of the formulae added gems after the bundler run. That's why I suggested resources.
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.
Yeh, I'm pretty confused as to why these gems would be manually installed like this rather than using system "bundle", "install", "--local", "--path=#{libexec}/vendor"
or something (like other Ruby formulae do).
9fe88a1
to
f4ca945
Compare
Formula/w/whatweb.rb
Outdated
system "bundle", "config", "--local", "#{libexec}/whatweb" | ||
system "bundle", "update" | ||
system "bundle", "install" | ||
system "make", "install", |
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.
To allow bundler installs the repo should have a Gemfile.lock
d503bdb
to
86b14d4
Compare
Formula/w/whatweb.rb
Outdated
system "gem", "install", "bundler" | ||
ENV.prepend_path "PATH", buildpath/"gem_home/bin" | ||
system "bundle", "config", "--local", "#{libexec}/whatweb" | ||
system "bundle", "update" |
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.
system "bundle", "update" |
We want to use the versions in Gemfile.lock
here.
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.
Thanks @MikeMcQuaid ok i will remove this, i put it there as a last ditch effort for a job i'm having trouble with.
This job keeps failing due to a missing gem addressable
, which doesn't make sense to me since it's included in the Gemfile. I also tried testing the forumula on my mac computer and a Debian 10 system and they don't have this problem. I don't know if this is a CI problem or a problem for the venfor
86b14d4
to
8a04508
Compare
"-e", "MANPATH=#{man}" | ||
end | ||
|
||
test do |
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.
Looks like https://github.com/urbanadventurer/WhatWeb/blob/master/Gemfile is missing a Gemfile.lock
and that perhaps is why addressable
isn't being installed as expected. I'd suggest perhaps making a PR to add one but there's been no PRs merged since 2021 so I'm wondering if this project is maintained at all any more, unfortunately.
|
Thanks. I'm aware of this error. The problem is despite 'addressable' being listed in the gem file, bundle will not install it and I haven't figured why it's doing this, or how to fix it. |
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. |
whatweb is a ubiquitous tool used for enumeration of web servers and other IOT devices. Commonly used within penetration testing and security audits, I felt that this tool should be provided as a Brew package. A known issue is that macOS versions older than Monterey require an updated Ruby version. Therefore is is expected that running brew bot tests for whatweb will trigger an error since it wants 'depends_on' to be replaced by 'uses_from_macos'. Unless there is a better way to deal with this, I kindly ask for an exception to be made within the pipeline.
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>
?* there is 1 expected error running
brew audit --new-formula whatweb
, . My situation is similar to https://github.com/orgs/Homebrew/discussions/2208#discussioncomment-1394078 , where it was recommended to ask the maintainers for a CI exception, otherwise i'm not sure the best way to proceed. My formula needs to install a newer Ruby version for older version of macos but without replacing replace 'depends_on' with 'uses_from_macos' which the test complains about.