fnox 1.2.3 (new formula)

[jdx]

• 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>?

---

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR introduces a new formula for fnox version 1.2.3, a secret management tool. The formula enables Homebrew users to install and use fnox for managing secrets.

Key changes:

• New formula file created with all necessary metadata (description, homepage, source URL, license)
• Build configuration for Rust-based tool with Linux-specific OpenSSL dependency handling
• Comprehensive test suite validating version output and basic secret management functionality

[Copilot]

The openssl@3 dependency is declared in the on_linux block but is unconditionally used in the install method via Formula['openssl@3']. Consider adding a guard to ensure the formula reference only occurs when the dependency is actually declared, or move the dependency outside the platform-specific block with appropriate conditions.

[jdx]

it'll be 30d on nov 19

[SMillerDev]

We frown on authors submitting their own work unless it is very popular.

https://docs.brew.sh/Acceptable-Formulae#niche-or-self-submitted-stuff

[davidolrik]

We frown on authors submitting their own work unless it is very popular.

Shouldn't 596 stars on GitHub in 2 weeks qualify as "very popular"?

[ozeebee]

@SMillerDev based on your "conditions":

The software in question must:

• be maintained (i.e. the last release wasn’t ages ago, it works without patching on all Homebrew-supported OS versions and has no outstanding, unpatched security vulnerabilities)
• be stable (e.g. not declared “unstable” or “beta” by upstream)
• be known (e.g. GitHub repositories should have >=30 forks, >=30 watchers or >=75 stars): >600 stars and counting
• be used
• have a homepage

All conditions are met.
So what prevents you from accepting this tool ?

Not even mentioning that the lack of Homebrew package could turn people off from using the tool.

Thanks