ronn-ng 0.10.1 (new formula)

[leoheitmannruiz]

• 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>?

---

ronn hasn't seen a commit in more than a decade. Debian and Alpine among others have dropped ronn and provide ronn-ng instead.

What do you think about deprecating ronn and pointing to ronn-ng (given that this build recipe looks good)?

[chenrui333]

What do you think about deprecating ronn and pointing to ronn-ng (given that this build recipe looks good)?

make sense.

[chenrui333]

Can you squash the commits and add ronn-ng into autobump.txt file? Thanks!

[leoheitmannruiz]

I don't know how to do this, sorry. If you can technically do so, I'd really appreciate if you did. Thanks!

[chenrui333]

  ronn-ng
    * Dependency 'ruby' is provided by macOS; please replace 'depends_on' with 'uses_from_macos'.

[github-actions]

@chenrui333 has requested bottles to be published to this PR.

[MikeMcQuaid]

What do you think about deprecating ronn and pointing to ronn-ng (given that this build recipe looks good)?

make sense.

@chenrui333 Please don't deprecate ronn unless it's actually broken for all use-cases for everyone or it has known, unpatched security vulnerabilities.