brew audit: Is "#{version}" redundant?

[kkdd]

Hello,
"brew audit" says "#{version}" is redundant as follows. I don't think so.

$ brew audit ricty.rb 
ricty:
 * Stable: version 3.2.3 is redundant with version scanned from URL
$ cat ricty.rb 
class Ricty < Formula
  homepage 'https://github.com/yascentur/Ricty'
  version '3.2.3'
  sha1 'be01bde44bd96a113430150ac1c06c34bf34ab09'
  url "https://github.com/yascentur/Ricty/archive/#{version}.tar.gz"
end

[jacknagel]

Since all Homebrew sees is the resulting string, it's impossible to detect whether you've interpolated the version or not.

We prefer not to interpolate the version in order to make it easy to copy/paste URLs.

[jakepetroules]

This is a bit ridiculous, especially when the version is specified multiple times in the URL.

version "1.4.3"
url "https://download.qt.io/official_releases/qbs/#{version}/qbs-src-#{version}.tar.gz"

Please re-think this policy. How often are people copy/pasting URLs from Homebrew formulas?

[MikeMcQuaid]

@jakepetroules It seems a bit ridiculous that qbs has the version multiple times in the URL.

[bfontaine]

@MikeMcQuaid to be fair it’s very common. The core has 642 formulae with an URL that contains the version twice or more.
Here are a few examples:

http://abcl.org/releases/1.3.2/abcl-bin-1.3.2.tar.gz
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/abook/abook/0.5.6/abook-0.5.6.tar.gz
https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi?path=activemq/activemq-cpp/3.8.4/activemq-cpp-library-3.8.4-src.tar.bz2
https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi?path=/activemq/5.11.2/apache-activemq-5.11.2-bin.tar.gz
https://github.com/admesh/admesh/releases/download/v0.98.2/admesh-0.98.2.tar.gz
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/adplug/AdPlug%20core%20library/2.2.1/adplug-2.2.1.tar.bz2
https://github.com/amadvance/advancecomp/releases/download/v1.20/advancecomp-1.20.tar.gz

[DomT4]

Stand by the comment I made in the related thread:

The version not being accepted inline in the URL is not a bug. It's an intentional choice we've made before.

We prefer full URLs for the sake of readability, making changes more obvious, etc. We pluck version out of the URL automatically and that can be used throughout the formula with the version syntax.

You're not really de-duplicating something if you replace two version numbers with one explicit version definition and two version variables. You've gone from two things to three to support the same thing.

I don't see how including an inline version and then using that version twice instead of just leaving the two version numbers in the URL is more efficient, not that either Mike or Baptiste are necessarily voicing support or opposition above.

[bfontaine]

I’m personally 👎 on allowing the url "…#{version}…" pattern; having the full URL is more readable.

We probably spend 10× (100×?) more time reading the code than writing it; so let’s optimize it for the readability 😄