[PATCH v2] travis-ci: fix Perforce install on macOS

[PATCH v2] travis-ci: fix Perforce install on macOS

[Lars Schneider]

The `perforce` and `perforce-server` package were moved from brew [1][2]
to cask [3]. Teach TravisCI the new location.

Perforce updates their binaries without version bumps. That made the
brew install (legitimately!) fail due to checksum mismatches. The
workaround is not necessary anymore as Cask [4] allows to disable the
checksum test for individual formulas.

[1] https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-binary/commit/1394e42de04d07445f82f9512627e864ff4ca4c6
[2] https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-binary/commit/f8da22d6b8dbcfcfdb2dfa9ac1a5e5d8e05aac2b
[3] https://github.com/caskroom/homebrew-cask/pull/29180
[4] https://caskroom.github.io/

Signed-off-by: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
---

Hi,

this small update removes one more unnecessary line and makes the
formula name lower case (no functional reason - just looks better ;-).

@Junio: Do you prefer such a v2 as "--in-reply-to" to v1 or as separate
        thread? What eases your workflow?

Thanks,
Lars


Notes:
    Base Commit: 787f75f056 (787f75f0567aa8c7347544c65e9d3bc6640a27d4)
    Diff on Web: https://github.com/larsxschneider/git/commit/a8ec423355
    Checkout:    git fetch https://github.com/larsxschneider/git travisci/brew-perforce-fix-v2 && git checkout a8ec423355

    Interdiff (v1..v2):

    diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml
    index c6ba8c8ec5..9c63c8c3f6 100644
    --- a/.travis.yml
    +++ b/.travis.yml
    @@ -76,12 +76,11 @@ before_install:
           ;;
         osx)
           brew update --quiet
    -      brew tap homebrew/binary --quiet
           # Uncomment this if you want to run perf tests:
           # brew install gnu-time
           brew install git-lfs gettext
           brew link --force gettext
    -      brew install Caskroom/cask/perforce
    +      brew install caskroom/cask/perforce
           ;;
         esac;
         echo "$(tput setaf 6)Perforce Server Version$(tput sgr0)";

 .travis.yml | 12 ++----------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml
index 3843967a69..9c63c8c3f6 100644
--- a/.travis.yml
+++ b/.travis.yml
@@ -75,20 +75,12 @@ before_install:
       popd
       ;;
     osx)
-      brew_force_set_latest_binary_hash () {
-        FORMULA=$1
-        SHA=$(brew fetch --force $FORMULA 2>&1 | grep ^SHA256: | cut -d ' ' -f 2)
-        sed -E -i.bak "s/sha256 \"[0-9a-f]{64}\"/sha256 \"$SHA\"/g" \
-          "$(brew --repository homebrew/homebrew-binary)/$FORMULA.rb"
-      }
       brew update --quiet
-      brew tap homebrew/binary --quiet
-      brew_force_set_latest_binary_hash perforce
-      brew_force_set_latest_binary_hash perforce-server
       # Uncomment this if you want to run perf tests:
       # brew install gnu-time
-      brew install git-lfs perforce-server perforce gettext
+      brew install git-lfs gettext
       brew link --force gettext
+      brew install caskroom/cask/perforce
       ;;
     esac;
     echo "$(tput setaf 6)Perforce Server Version$(tput sgr0)";
--
2.11.0

Re: [PATCH v2] travis-ci: fix Perforce install on macOS

[Junio C Hamano]

Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> writes:

> The `perforce` and `perforce-server` package were moved from brew [1][2]
> to cask [3]. Teach TravisCI the new location.
>
> Perforce updates their binaries without version bumps. That made the
> brew install (legitimately!) fail due to checksum mismatches. The
> workaround is not necessary anymore as Cask [4] allows to disable the
> checksum test for individual formulas.
>
> [1] https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-binary/commit/1394e42de04d07445f82f9512627e864ff4ca4c6
> [2] https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-binary/commit/f8da22d6b8dbcfcfdb2dfa9ac1a5e5d8e05aac2b
> [3] https://github.com/caskroom/homebrew-cask/pull/29180
> [4] https://caskroom.github.io/
>
> Signed-off-by: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> this small update removes one more unnecessary line and makes the
> formula name lower case (no functional reason - just looks better ;-).
>
> @Junio: Do you prefer such a v2 as "--in-reply-to" to v1 or as separate
>         thread? What eases your workflow?

It does not make that much of a difference if the second one comes
within a few days since the first one but in general it probably
would help if the follow-up is threaded _and_ made it clear upfront
that if somebody is reading v2 then v1 can be ignored ;-).

Thanks.