This is the pattern we've been adopting for a while and it's a bit
cleaner. Let's remove all of the existing usage of the existing pattern
to avoid confusion when adopting the new one.
Update both the variables that dictate this and the documents that
explain our GCC/glibc policies.
These should ease a future migration to a newer GCC version.
- Previously I thought that comments were fine to discourage people from
wasting their time trying to bump things that used `undef` that Sorbet
didn't support. But RuboCop is better at this since it'll complain if
the comments are unnecessary.
- Suggested in https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/pull/18018#issuecomment-2283369501.
- I've gone for a mixture of `rubocop:disable` for the files that can't
be `typed: strict` (use of undef, required before everything else, etc)
and `rubocop:todo` for everything else that should be tried to make
strictly typed. There's no functional difference between the two as
`rubocop:todo` is `rubocop:disable` with a different name.
- And I entirely disabled the cop for the docs/ directory since
`typed: strict` isn't going to gain us anything for some Markdown
linting config files.
- This means that now it's easier to track what needs to be done rather
than relying on checklists of files in our big Sorbet issue:
```shell
$ git grep 'typed: true # rubocop:todo Sorbet/StrictSigil' | wc -l
268
```
- And this is confirmed working for new files:
```shell
$ git status
On branch use-rubocop-for-sorbet-strict-sigils
Untracked files:
(use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed)
Library/Homebrew/bad.rb
Library/Homebrew/good.rb
nothing added to commit but untracked files present (use "git add" to track)
$ brew style
Offenses:
bad.rb:1:1: C: Sorbet/StrictSigil: Sorbet sigil should be at least strict got true.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1340 files inspected, 1 offense detected
```
Fixes error seen in Homebrew/homebrew-core#138452.
`DevelopmentTools.default_compiler` can return a `Symbol` like `:clang`.
Make sure its result can be fed to `DevelopmentTools.locate`.
Signed-off-by: Ruoyu Zhong <zhongruoyu@outlook.com>
Right now this is done through the gcc@5 formula.
See 9692318ca6/Formula/gcc%405.rb (L33)
This is fragile because when we will migrate to gcc@11
we have to think about migrating the installation from one gcc formula to another..
Also, not having the right glibc version results in a non-functional brew
installation on an older Linux: the glibc installation needs
to be done by brew, and not by a workaround in a specific formula
Co-Authored-By: Mike McQuaid <mike@mikemcquaid.com>
Co-Authored-By: Bo Anderson <mail@boanderson.me>
Co-Authored-By: Shaun Jackman <sjackman@gmail.com>
