fsarchiver 0.8.7 (new formula)

[phreed]

Develop Formulae: fsarchiver

• Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
• Have you ensured that your commits follow the commit style guide?
• Have you checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same formula update/change?
• Have you built your formula locally with HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Is your test running fine brew test <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Does your build pass brew audit --strict <formula> (after doing HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>)? If this is a new formula, does it pass brew audit --new <formula>?

There are some remaining issues I would like some guidance on.

• The make which should be used does not properly include headers from dependencies (see the discussion)
• This is not my package, I need to communicate with the owner

[github-actions]

Thanks for contributing to Homebrew! 🎉 It looks like you're having trouble with a CI failure. See our contribution guide for help. You may be most interested in the section on dealing with CI failures. You can find the CI logs in the Checks tab of your pull request.

[carlocab]

Can you propose a more substantial test than checking the version or calling for help? These tests rarely ever fail even for broken installations.

We want tests that don’t require any user input and test the basic functionality of the application. For example foo build-foo input.foo is a good test and (despite their widespread use) foo --version and foo --help are bad tests.

Ref. https://docs.brew.sh/Formula-Cookbook#add-a-test-to-the-formula

[phreed]

I do not know, most fsarchiver runs need root access and mess with disks.
I will see if there are any partitions which can be accessed without root access.

[carlocab]

Can we try to do something that requires root access while not actually having root access, and check that we get the expected failure message and exit code?

[carlocab]

I've applied some of my suggestions since you seem to be having a rough time here. I'll have a look at the failures later to find the right fix for some of the things I've removed.

[carlocab]

  configure: error: Unsupported system type darwin24.0.0

I guess this should be Linux-only?

[phreed]

  configure: error: Unsupported system type darwin24.0.0

I guess this should be Linux-only?

Yes, this is Linux-only.
How is that indicated?

[phreed]

I have copied the build problem info from the discussion:

When I run

brew install --build-from-source fsarchiver --debug

I get the error,

BuildError: Failed executing: make
1. raise
2. ignore
3. backtrace
4. irb
5. shell
Choose an action:

I choose shell and do the following:

cd src
make -d fsarchiver-fs_ext2.o

This reproduces the error.

Makefile:795: update target 'fsarchiver-fs_ext2.o' due to: target does not exist
echo "  CC      " fsarchiver-fs_ext2.o;gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -D_REENTRANT -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -I..    -g -O2 -Wall -std=gnu99 -rdynamic -ggdb -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/xz/5.6.2/include -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include/ext2fs -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include/et -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include/et -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include/e2p -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/util-linux/2.40.2/include/blkid -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/util-linux/2.40.2/include/uuid -g -O2 -c -o fsarchiver-fs_ext2.o `test -f 'fs_ext2.c' || echo './'`fs_ext2.c
Putting child 0x56030a182a10 (fsarchiver-fs_ext2.o) PID 213582 on the chain.
Recipe of 'fsarchiver-fs_ext2.o' is being run.
Live child 0x56030a182a10 (fsarchiver-fs_ext2.o) PID 213582 
  CC       fsarchiver-fs_ext2.o
fs_ext2.c:23:10: fatal error: ext2fs.h: No such file or directory
   23 | #include <ext2fs.h>
      |          ^~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.

However if I run the compile by hand.

gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -D_REENTRANT -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -I..    -g -O2 -Wall -std=gnu99 -rdynamic -ggdb -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/xz/5.6.2/include -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include/ext2fs -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include/et -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include/et -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include/e2p -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/e2fsprogs/1.47.1/include -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/util-linux/2.40.2/include/blkid -I/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Cellar/util-linux/2.40.2/include/uuid -g -O2 -c -o fsarchiver-fs_ext2.o `test -f 'fs_ext2.c' || echo './'`fs_ext2.c

It compiles and produces the object file (with warnings).

fs_ext2.c: In function ‘extfs_getinfo’:
fs_ext2.c:454:52: warning: argument to ‘sizeof’ in ‘strncpy’ call is the same expression as the source; did you mean to use the size of the destination? [-Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess]
  454 |         strncpy(label, super->s_volume_name, sizeof(super->s_volume_name));
      |                                                    ^
fs_ext2.c: In function ‘extfs_mkfs’:
fs_ext2.c:226:39: warning: ‘%s’ directive output may be truncated writing up to 2047 bytes into a region of size 64 [-Wformat-truncation=]
  226 |         snprintf(uuid, sizeof(uuid), "%s", buffer);
      |                                       ^~   ~~~~~~
fs_ext2.c:226:9: note: ‘snprintf’ output between 1 and 2048 bytes into a destination of size 64
  226 |         snprintf(uuid, sizeof(uuid), "%s", buffer);
      |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How does running the compile from the makefile produce a different result?

[phreed]

It appears the version of make being run is crippled (or modified) in some way.

When I select (5) the shell, cd src.
The following version of make, appears to build everything properly.

/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/opt/make/bin/make all

This version is installed by brew install make.

The following make which is the one found in the PATH during the build, produces the include errors mentioned above.

/var/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/Homebrew/Library/Homebrew/shims/linux/super/make

When I ask for the version information the two report the same information.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[phreed]

I need some guidance on how to proceed.

[carlocab]

The release tarball contains a configure script. Perhaps we can skip this?

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.