bazel 1.2.1

[chenrui333]

Created with brew bump-formula-pr.

[chenrui333]

bazelisk test failed on highsierra build only

14:14:32 ==> brew test --verbose bazelisk
14:14:41 ==> FAILED
14:14:41 Testing bazelisk
14:14:41 /usr/bin/sandbox-exec -f /private/tmp/homebrew20191120-24913-sbnyaw.sb ruby -W0 -I $LOAD_PATH -- /usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Homebrew/test.rb /usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Taps/homebrew/homebrew-core/Formula/bazelisk.rb --verbose
14:14:41 ==> /usr/local/Cellar/bazelisk/1.1.0/bin/bazelisk version
14:14:41 2019/11/20 19:14:35 Downloading https://releases.bazel.build/1.2.0/release/bazel-1.2.0-darwin-x86_64...
14:14:41 dyld: lazy symbol binding failed: Symbol not found: ____chkstk_darwin
14:14:41 Referenced from: /private/tmp/bazelisk-test-20191120-24914-1nw6vhm/Library/Caches/bazelisk/bin/bazelbuild/bazel-1.2.0-darwin-x86_64 (which was built for Mac OS X 10.15)
14:14:41 Expected in: /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib
14:14:41
14:14:41 dyld: Symbol not found: ____chkstk_darwin
14:14:41 Referenced from: /private/tmp/bazelisk-test-20191120-24914-1nw6vhm/Library/Caches/bazelisk/bin/bazelbuild/bazel-1.2.0-darwin-x86_64 (which was built for Mac OS X 10.15)
14:14:41 Expected in: /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib
14:14:41

[chenrui333]

@BrewTestBot test this please

[chenrui333]

retest to see if it happens again.

[Bo98]

which was built for Mac OS X 10.15

Is there a binary floating around or something? I can't see how High Sierra would even know about 10.15.

[chenrui333]

Is there a binary floating around or something? I can't see how High Sierra would even know about 10.15.

I also checked with the previous releases, like 1.1.0 (seems fine with bazellisk)

[chenrui333]

I downloaded and unzipped the source code, did not find 10.15 or catalina reference there.

[Bo98]

Oh wait, my reading comprehension is apparently terrible and I didn't see a few lines up:

Downloading https://releases.bazel.build/1.2.0/release/bazel-1.2.0-darwin-x86_64...

I think bazelisk is downloading a binary.

[chenrui333]

yeah, I dont understand why bazel is trying to download the artifact.

[Bo98]

It's bazelisk rather than bazel itself, so I don't think it's to do with your bazel 1.2.0 upgrade. It just happened to break because the latest binary bazelisk is trying to download no longer works on 10.13.

The behaviour seems to be what bazelisk is supposed to do:

How does Bazelisk know which Bazel version to run and where to get it from?

It uses a simple algorithm:

• If the environment variable USE_BAZEL_VERSION is set, it will use the version specified in the value.
• Otherwise, if a .bazelversion file exists in the current directory or recursively any parent directory, it will read the file and use the version specified in it.
• Otherwise it will use the official latest Bazel release.

https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazelisk

[chenrui333]

if that is case, it should consistently fail for the other two environments as well, right?

[Bo98]

It's failing on a particular symbol (____chkstk_darwin) that was added on 10.14, hence why it only fails on 10.13. It's just the way the precompiled binary it's downloading was compiled.

The problem is we didn't compile it. Bazelisk does not use Homebrew bazel unless you tell it to via USE_BAZEL_VERSION or the .bazelversion file. Bazelisk is basically just a wrapper around downloading bazel.

[philwo]

Hi,

I work on Bazel and its CI. Sorry - this might be an unintended breakage resulting from us upgrading our Xcode version on the CI machines from 10.2.1 to 11.1. 😞 I guess that new toolchain generates binaries that no longer work on High Sierra. Bazel 1.1.0 was still built with the older Xcode, but Bazel 1.2.0 was built with the newer one.

I'll prepare Bazel 1.2.1 as a patch release on Monday that will be built with Xcode 10.2.1 to restore High Sierra compatibility.

What's your policy in Homebrew for supporting older macOS releases - would it be OK if we dropped support for High Sierra in Bazel 2.0 (~next month)? Or should we try to keep this working for as long as possible?

[Bo98]

Thanks for reaching out!

Generally, we support the current OS and the last two. However, we don't constrain other developers to do the same. If Bazel drops support for High Sierra, and such change is documented as intended, then we can set the specific formula to require Mojave and later (example here).

[chenrui333]

@Bo98 @philwo

I have two sides for this, as maintainer for homebrew-core, I do think if it does not support, we should remove the bottle from the formula.

But as Meetup engineer, we do still have some engineers running Bazel on HIgh Sierra machine, so I might prefer to have a fix for it in Bazel side. :)

Thanks though!

[Bo98]

It should be possible to build to support High Sierra on Xcode 11 if that's the only issue you are having @philwo. Make sure the "deployment target" is set - this is the minimum macOS version you'd like to support.

[SMillerDev]

While not supporting an older apple-supported version wouldn't be grounds for removal it would be something that would indicate to users that you're not serious about macOS support. (And as a maintainer pretty annoying to answer questions about)

[chenrui333]

@SMillerDev I just dont have a machine to test, that is why I was pushing a rc release though. But we do have engineers at Meetup using an old Mac.

[Bo98]

The problem isn't our compile of bazel. Even without this pull request bazelisk won't work currently on High Sierra because the very nature of it is to download binaries not compiled by ourselves.

If you move it back to 1.1.0 and revision bump the same thing will probably happen.

[philwo]

While not supporting an older apple-supported version wouldn't be grounds for removal it would be something that would indicate to users that you're not serious about macOS support.

Thanks for explaining your thoughts here. It was an accidental breakage on Bazel's side and we have no plans to drop High Sierra support at the moment. (We also don't have enough CI machines to test on it, though, so we rely on users to report breakages ideally during our release candidate window.) I agree that supporting the latest macOS release + the two previous releases is a nice policy. AFAIK that's also what Apple does with their security fixes, right?

The problem isn't our compile of bazel. Even without this pull request bazelisk won't work currently on High Sierra because the very nature of it is to download binaries not compiled by ourselves.

Yes. The step that is failing here is the Bazel downloaded by Bazelisk, not the Bazel binary that you're building yourself. Bazelisk always picks the latest stable version by default. If you want to temporarily override this, you can set the USE_BAZEL_VERSION=1.1.0 environment variable before calling Bazelisk. It should always work to use the previous Bazel release to build the current release (this is what we do on Bazel's CI, too).

We also have a patch release 1.2.1rc1 that will fix the incompatibility. I will release it tomorrow morning. @soonho-tri kindly tested and confirmed that the new version works again on High Sierra. :)

[chenrui333]

Add USE_BAZEL_VERSION env line for fixing the bazelisk test issue.

[chenrui333]

Current build failure is due to the rc build audit failure.

[chenrui333]

Refresh the PR with the latest bazel 1.2.1 release.

[chenrui333]

brew doctor failed on highsierra build, which can be totally ignored.

[chenrui333]

Thanks everyone!!