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

Support High Sierra #3121

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 22, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@fxcoudert
Member

fxcoudert commented Sep 4, 2017

  • Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
  • Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same change?
  • Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
  • Have you successfully run brew tests with your changes locally?

macOS 10.13 is going to be released soon, and we are working on its support. As long as it's considered prerelease, we tell users not to file issues. At this point, I think it's counter-productive and we want to know about potential issues.

Also, the system Ruby on High Sierra is 2.3, so the diagnostics need to be adapted to expect that. However, the Ruby test fails but I'm not sure how to adapt it. Suggestions welcome!

@ilovezfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ilovezfs

ilovezfs Sep 4, 2017

Contributor

We can wait for the GM ;)

Contributor

ilovezfs commented Sep 4, 2017

We can wait for the GM ;)

@MikeMcQuaid

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MikeMcQuaid

MikeMcQuaid Sep 4, 2017

Member

Yes, I want to wait for at least the GM if not the actual release. Apple still changes stuff under us right up until the GM and we don't have any CI boxes yet so we really can't claim to provide any level of support yet.

Member

MikeMcQuaid commented Sep 4, 2017

Yes, I want to wait for at least the GM if not the actual release. Apple still changes stuff under us right up until the GM and we don't have any CI boxes yet so we really can't claim to provide any level of support yet.

@fxcoudert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fxcoudert

fxcoudert Sep 4, 2017

Member

I'm happy with waiting for the GM. Just for the sake of data: 10.13 currently represents 11% of our installs, compared to 75% for 10.12, 12% for 10.11, and 2.6% for 10.10.

Member

fxcoudert commented Sep 4, 2017

I'm happy with waiting for the GM. Just for the sake of data: 10.13 currently represents 11% of our installs, compared to 75% for 10.12, 12% for 10.11, and 2.6% for 10.10.

@DomT4

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DomT4

DomT4 Sep 4, 2017

Contributor

As long as it's considered prerelease, we tell users not to file issues.

Doesn't usually stop them much, to be honest 😸.

Contributor

DomT4 commented Sep 4, 2017

As long as it's considered prerelease, we tell users not to file issues.

Doesn't usually stop them much, to be honest 😸.

@bai

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bai

bai Sep 14, 2017

GM has been just released. Any blockers on getting this shipped?

bai commented Sep 14, 2017

GM has been just released. Any blockers on getting this shipped?

@DomT4

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DomT4

DomT4 Sep 14, 2017

Contributor

Probably Mike's comment on this:

I don't want to go back to supporting different Ruby versions in different places.

Contributor

DomT4 commented Sep 14, 2017

Probably Mike's comment on this:

I don't want to go back to supporting different Ruby versions in different places.

@MikeMcQuaid

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MikeMcQuaid

MikeMcQuaid Sep 14, 2017

Member

Yes, I want to wait for at least the GM if not the actual release.

Given we still don't have any CI running: I want to wait for the actual release, thanks.

Member

MikeMcQuaid commented Sep 14, 2017

Yes, I want to wait for at least the GM if not the actual release.

Given we still don't have any CI running: I want to wait for the actual release, thanks.

@DomT4

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DomT4

DomT4 Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

Did /usr/include completely vanish for everyone else with the High Sierra GM lol? (See discussion below).

Contributor

DomT4 commented Sep 15, 2017

Did /usr/include completely vanish for everyone else with the High Sierra GM lol? (See discussion below).

@ilovezfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ilovezfs

ilovezfs Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

Presumably you just need to reinstall the CLT.

Contributor

ilovezfs commented Sep 15, 2017

Presumably you just need to reinstall the CLT.

@DomT4

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DomT4

DomT4 Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

Yeah, almost the entire CLT installation got wiped by updating to the GM. A little unexpected. There was no indication that would happen from the upgrade or macOS in general, unless I missed a snippet in the release notes on the developer website.

Contributor

DomT4 commented Sep 15, 2017

Yeah, almost the entire CLT installation got wiped by updating to the GM. A little unexpected. There was no indication that would happen from the upgrade or macOS in general, unless I missed a snippet in the release notes on the developer website.

@DomT4

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DomT4

DomT4 Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

Hmm. I think it has something to do with the apparently mandatory migration to APFS. Ho hum.

Contributor

DomT4 commented Sep 15, 2017

Hmm. I think it has something to do with the apparently mandatory migration to APFS. Ho hum.

@ilovezfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ilovezfs

ilovezfs Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

Sounds like a bug in previous installers if they weren't doing that. So is /usr/include back after CLT reinstall?

Contributor

ilovezfs commented Sep 15, 2017

Sounds like a bug in previous installers if they weren't doing that. So is /usr/include back after CLT reinstall?

@DomT4

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DomT4

DomT4 Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

I deliberately stayed on HFS+ until now, and at least as far as I recall this is the first time /usr/include has vanished after updating/upgrading/your preferred term here.

I noticed during the CLT installation diskarbitrationd was asking for access to /Volumes/Preboot which hasn't happened before, obviously I guess since IIRC it's an APFS thing, so perhaps something hit a hiccup there during the update/upgrade/whatever.

So is /usr/include back after CLT reinstall?

Aye.

Contributor

DomT4 commented Sep 15, 2017

I deliberately stayed on HFS+ until now, and at least as far as I recall this is the first time /usr/include has vanished after updating/upgrading/your preferred term here.

I noticed during the CLT installation diskarbitrationd was asking for access to /Volumes/Preboot which hasn't happened before, obviously I guess since IIRC it's an APFS thing, so perhaps something hit a hiccup there during the update/upgrade/whatever.

So is /usr/include back after CLT reinstall?

Aye.

@ilovezfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ilovezfs

ilovezfs Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

It's not actually mandatory. There's a startosinstall command in the installer .app with a --converttoapfs NO option.

Contributor

ilovezfs commented Sep 15, 2017

It's not actually mandatory. There's a startosinstall command in the installer .app with a --converttoapfs NO option.

@DomT4

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DomT4

DomT4 Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

It's not actually mandatory

Extremely pushy rather than mandatory then, if you prefer 😉.

Contributor

DomT4 commented Sep 15, 2017

It's not actually mandatory

Extremely pushy rather than mandatory then, if you prefer 😉.

@ilovezfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ilovezfs

ilovezfs Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

It's probably more about user confusion than pushiness. Think of how many useless "Should I check that box or not?" inquiries and FUD they've prevented.

Contributor

ilovezfs commented Sep 15, 2017

It's probably more about user confusion than pushiness. Think of how many useless "Should I check that box or not?" inquiries and FUD they've prevented.

@DomT4

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DomT4

DomT4 Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

Yeah, I get it from that point of view.

I have some nerves around using a new filesystem a whole bunch of third-parties haven't even considered the behaviour of yet, but I guess Apple are happy enough with the stability of it to be rolling it out by default without that "Do you want APFS or na?" checkbox displayed as part of the default graphical installation process.

Anyway, just wanted to see whether the /usr/include vanishing thing was a common issue or whether it was a snag in the HFS+ => APFS migration really.

Contributor

DomT4 commented Sep 15, 2017

Yeah, I get it from that point of view.

I have some nerves around using a new filesystem a whole bunch of third-parties haven't even considered the behaviour of yet, but I guess Apple are happy enough with the stability of it to be rolling it out by default without that "Do you want APFS or na?" checkbox displayed as part of the default graphical installation process.

Anyway, just wanted to see whether the /usr/include vanishing thing was a common issue or whether it was a snag in the HFS+ => APFS migration really.

@ilovezfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ilovezfs

ilovezfs Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

Anyway, just wanted to see whether the /usr/include vanishing thing was a common issue or whether it was a snag in the HFS+ => APFS migration really.

I'm curious whether brew config shows the CLT as being installed or as being not installed when you had the CLT installed before the upgrade to High Sierra, but afterward /usr/include has gone missing. If we are showing the CLT as being installed, we'll need to fix that so it shows as being not installed and/or add a doctor diagnostic about it.

Contributor

ilovezfs commented Sep 15, 2017

Anyway, just wanted to see whether the /usr/include vanishing thing was a common issue or whether it was a snag in the HFS+ => APFS migration really.

I'm curious whether brew config shows the CLT as being installed or as being not installed when you had the CLT installed before the upgrade to High Sierra, but afterward /usr/include has gone missing. If we are showing the CLT as being installed, we'll need to fix that so it shows as being not installed and/or add a doctor diagnostic about it.

@DomT4

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DomT4

DomT4 Sep 15, 2017

Contributor

After the update brew config printed N/A on CLT existence. The only thing left post-update in the /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr folder was share/man.

Contributor

DomT4 commented Sep 15, 2017

After the update brew config printed N/A on CLT existence. The only thing left post-update in the /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr folder was share/man.

@ilovezfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ilovezfs

ilovezfs Sep 17, 2017

Contributor

After the update brew config printed N/A on CLT existence. The only thing left post-update in the /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr folder was share/man.

This just happened exactly as you described (only thing remaining is the whatis man page) on CI after updating to the GM. No APFS involved.

Contributor

ilovezfs commented Sep 17, 2017

After the update brew config printed N/A on CLT existence. The only thing left post-update in the /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr folder was share/man.

This just happened exactly as you described (only thing remaining is the whatis man page) on CI after updating to the GM. No APFS involved.

@MikeMcQuaid

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MikeMcQuaid

MikeMcQuaid Sep 21, 2017

Member

@fxcoudert This can be squashed and merged 🎉

Member

MikeMcQuaid commented Sep 21, 2017

@fxcoudert This can be squashed and merged 🎉

@DomT4

DomT4 approved these changes Sep 21, 2017

@JCount

JCount approved these changes Sep 22, 2017

@fxcoudert fxcoudert merged commit 064c52e into Homebrew:master Sep 22, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@fxcoudert fxcoudert deleted the fxcoudert:highsierra branch Sep 22, 2017

@Homebrew Homebrew locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 4, 2018

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.