-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.6k
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
icu4c 69.1 #74794
icu4c 69.1 #74794
Conversation
ARM Error: 197 failed steps!
Linkage failures (36 formulae)
|
Mojave Error: 218 failed steps!
Linkage failures (42 formulae)
|
Catalina Error: 222 failed steps!
Linkage failures (42 formulae)
|
Big Sur Error: 221 failed steps!
Linkage failures (42 formulae)
|
Bumped the |
Thank you @carlocab. |
No problem @miccal. Looks like
Interestingly, |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Not really sure how to fix |
Node seems to have been able to upgrade to icu 69.1 without incident, though: nodejs/node#38178 |
Node < 16 (master) requires V8 patches. It might take some time to go through upstream. Breakages like this are very much normal with ICU updates - they typically take a few weeks to merge. I can possibly identify the patches and see if they apply cleanly, and we could potentially carry them outselves. |
Sure, if you have the time, but I don't think anyone's particularly excited for the new |
Let's see if the Node version bumped helped at all. |
I'll try track down the v8 patch just now. Node 16 should be fine afaik. |
I'll see whether upstream is tracking backporting this or not. |
Not sure how I missed the
|
Looks like ICU 68.2 was never even intended for The simplest solution here is probably to just remove the ICU dependency for the versioned Node formulae, with the possible exception of |
With some luck, the only thing broken from this should be Still need to work out how to fix that. |
This makes it fall out of the category of "acceptable formulae" if we use bundled deps so I'd much rather apply the patch. I will backport it if it doesn't apply cleanly. I won't be online tomorrow but will be again at the weekend. It's possible we'll need to patch anyway for Node 10 since I think it's probably too late to get anything done upstream before EOL. |
Yep, I applied the patch. I had a quick look at the source and it looks like it should apply. Node 10 does not need patching; it builds fine with ICU 69. The file that is patched in v8/v8@035c305 doesn't even exist in Node 10's v8. Edit: Ah, no, it'll need to be backported for Node 12. |
Backported patch: Homebrew/formula-patches#362 |
The @alerque, any chance you know what's going on here? It seems to be failing while building the Lua rocks. Ah, I think it's related to this: luarocks/luarocks#1302 errors look similar. Workaround seems to be to install |
This is the first I'm hearing of an issue, to my knowledge there shouldn't be any upstream issues on the SILE side but if there is I'd be happy to fix it. Did the order change you made fix the problem or is there something outstanding I should look into? |
Yea, doesn't look like anything broken on your end. Reordering the resources worked for me locally, but we'll have to wait a bit to see how it goes in CI. I don't see any reason why it should fail, though. Thanks for having a look. |
Also, add flags to prevent building plugins that are separate formulae.
Also: - use system expat - clean up install method - use rockspecs instead of tarballs
On Mojave:
Most likely spurious. |
Same thing on Big Sur. Merging. |
|
qt picked up (opportunistic) linkage with `brotli` in Homebrew#74794. See Homebrew#75915.
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 doingbrew install <formula>
)?