-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.8k
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
suggest replacements on "brew cask install" fail
- Loading branch information
1 parent
fe90e26
commit c95a7f2
Showing
3 changed files
with
53 additions
and
2 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
c95a7f2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This commit may be the cause of this issue #4785
Additionally a test for a warning return on
brew cask install <already_installed_cask>
should be added.The use case where this is a problem is
brew bundle
.c95a7f2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Example of the difference between
brew install
vs.brew cask install
in the case where a package is already installed:Brew
Brew Cask
c95a7f2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! This is probably not exactly the cause of #4785, as there were a number of related changes, and the issue seems to have been around in one form or other for some time: #1347, #2677.
But, yes, this code you point out is being re-worked in #4787.