Add Packer v0.6.1

[vitorgalvao]

Closes #5742.

[radeksimko]

@vitorgalvao
I guess it's a bit too late for this, but see #5364

Any particular reason why to include this -> more importantly without linking all the packer binaries?

[vitorgalvao]

Apologies, I’ve missed that issue (I’ve only checked if the cask was already present). I do think it should be included, as that was my impression from #4228. Limiting the rule to “include binaries only if they come in a package format unsupported by homebrew(/binary)” is confusing, and makes no sense to me. Why should we be filtering submissions based on how they’re compressed (especially since that’s something that can so easily change)? Another reason we decided for inclusion was that we’re more active than homebrew/binary and many contributors already naturally gravitate towards us for binaries. We have the infrastructure, and our syntax is more familiar to those contributors, so why go against that expectation, and with a confusing (and nonsensical, I believe) “sometimes it’s ok, sometimes it’s not” rule, on top of that?

I’ll make that point on the relevant discussion, to see if we can reach a consensus. However, I disagree your comment was late (thanks to github’s new “revert”, it’s even easier to fix), and I agree that other submission is superior. I’m going then to revert this one, and if we agree in the matter, we can consider the previous contribution.

Thank you for bringing this to attention.