Homebrew depreciation

[xaocon]

What is the problem you are having with rclone?

Homebrew installation is being depreciated

What is your rclone version (output from rclone version)

rclone v1.53.2-DEV

• os/arch: darwin/amd64
• go version: go1.15.3

Which OS you are using and how many bits (e.g. Windows 7, 64 bit)

Which cloud storage system are you using? (e.g. Google Drive)

The command you were trying to run (e.g. rclone copy /tmp remote:tmp)

A log from the command with the -vv flag (e.g. output from rclone -vv copy /tmp remote:tmp)

None of this other stuff applies to this issue but I read them.
I took a look for reports of this issue already but didn't see one. This seems to be a pretty new change too. The problem is related to the fact fuse is required. See Homebrew/homebrew-core@4f0402f for more details.

[ncw]

I put a comment on commit Homebrew/homebrew-core@4f0402f#commitcomment-44223361

Note that rclone runs fine without FUSE installed (it dynamically loads it if present), it just can't run rclone mount.

@darthShadow - do you want to follow up on this one since you know something about brew and updated the rclone recipe recently?

[darthShadow]

Sure, will do.

I was planning to anyway setup a separate tap (if nobody else does it) so we can have the mount command even once they remove support for FUSE since we will get too many issues otherwise about the missing mount command.

[darthShadow]

Once I do send the PR, we will have the binary not supporting the mount command. How do you want to handle that? Perhaps a separate build tag which can be used in Homebrew that prints out a message (on using mount) regarding the lack of mount support and to download the binary from the website if they want it?

[xaocon]

It's not up to me but I think the right thing to do is remove the depends and the depreciated and then add something in the `caveats` stanza that mentions that mount won't work without fuse and leave it up to the user to decide how they want to handle.

…

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:00 PM Anagh Kumar Baranwal < ***@***.***> wrote: Once I do send the PR, we will have the binary not supporting the mount command. How do you want to handle that? Perhaps a separate build tag which can be used in Homebrew that prints out a message (on using mount) regarding the lack of mount support and to download the binary from the website if they want it? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4775 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADBKD73MMJN2FQIPQQ433DSQFLDHANCNFSM4TWN6ICQ> .

[ncw]

Once I do send the PR, we will have the binary not supporting the mount command. How do you want to handle that? Perhaps a separate build tag which can be used in Homebrew that prints out a message (on using mount) regarding the lack of mount support and to download the binary from the website if they want it?

That is a nice idea. So a brew build tag maybe?

[darthShadow]

Yep, will send a PR in the next few days if that's fine?

[xaocon]

Seems like maybe I jumped the gun on this after reading the the comments on the depreciation. I think just updating the formula to remove the fuse dependency for build is the right way to go. No reason to keep the prebuilt binaries from using fuse if it's available. Still might be worth mentioning it in caveats.