Skip to content
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

Brew Cask dependency order when both Cask and Formula dependencies used. #71771

Closed
hasinthaindrajee opened this issue Oct 31, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by Homebrew/brew#6668
Closed
Labels

Comments

@hasinthaindrajee
Copy link
Contributor

Description of feature/enhancement

When a Cask depens_on both Formulas and Casks, the formula dependencies are satisfied first and then casks dependencies are satisfied. According to the source the order of dependency resolution is, first it installs Formula dependencies and then only Cask dependencies are installed.[1] https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/1b18943317ed2f97ec689c1560504ed5f278e9c7/Library/Homebrew/cask/installer.rb#L248-L257

Justification

There are some formulas which depends on software which are not available as formulas. Instead those dependencies are available as casks. If my application cask depends on a formula which has defined a Requirement on a Cask, the installation will fail even if I add the Cask as my applications dependency.

Example use case

I have an application which uses sshfs formula. sshfs uses osxfuse as a d requirement. I am adding below depens_on clauses in my Cask.

depends_on cask: ‘osxfuse’
depends_on formula: ‘sshfs’

This fails due to unsatisfied requirement of asxfuse in sshfs. What I expect is to resolve the dependencies in the order they have defined so that this problem will go away.

@lock lock bot added the outdated label Jan 1, 2020
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 1, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant