El Capitan and Homebrew • Hacker News Board

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#71

Post by provemewrong » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:19 AM UTC

skrause wrote: post #23

pilif wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then install brew with sudo.

This is what you used to see when you tried to use sudo with brew: Error: Cowardly refusing to `sudo brew install` You can use brew with sudo, but only if the brew executable is owned by root. However, this is both not recommended and completely unsupported so do so at your own risk. I don't know if it's different now, but a quick Google search indicates that brew still behaves like this. I would like to use brew wit…

>so do so at your own risk.

sudo su at your own risk, hehe.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#72

Post by kiernan » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:35 AM UTC

antouank wrote: post #41

Installed El Capitan yesterday. Process took almost half an hour. Afterwards, brew just gave me a warning to do "chown" to my usr/local. That's it. Everything works fine.

Wouldn't that mean any other users would be unable to use (or maybe just install or upgrade) homebrew stuff?

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#73

Post by jawngee » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:38 AM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #61

Users should have full control over their own machines. System Integrity Protection is obnoxious paternalism at best, and at worst, it's just another step toward iOS-ification. If Apple keeps this up, I expect a revival of Linux desktop distributions.

Yes, 2016 might very well be the year of the Linux desktop.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#74

Post by q3k » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:40 AM UTC

nailer wrote: post #46

This is one of the reasons I love HN: a grapevine of important things to help developers fix their dev environments, security things we need to be aware of for our servers, new APIs to take advantage of, and other important stuff.

Well, if you use OS X, write against Node.JS, work at a SV startup and are interested in big data / machine learning. It is quite a bubble.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#75

Post by joosters » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:41 AM UTC

glogla wrote: post #67

Homebrew troubles aside, does System Integrity Protection means the end of OpenVPN and FUSE on Mac OS? Those need to add kernel modules and such.

Yosemite already prevented unsigned kernel modules, so I don't think anything will change here.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#76

Post by hamstergene » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:44 AM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #61

Users should have full control over their own machines. System Integrity Protection is obnoxious paternalism at best, and at worst, it's just another step toward iOS-ification. If Apple keeps this up, I expect a revival of Linux desktop distributions.

The common problem of today OSes is that shall malware breach security at least once, it can hide in the system and you will have no idea that you have it. SIP is a good step towards fixing that problem.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#77

Post by joosters » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:45 AM UTC

dagw wrote: post #60

jackgavigan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What unix convention are you referring to?

FHS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard )

Can't see how that applies. Does FHS really say anything about the structure underneath /usr/local ? Besides which, the Mac's filesystem isn't FHS in the first place...

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#78

Post by Zirro » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:57 AM UTC

glogla wrote: post #67

Homebrew troubles aside, does System Integrity Protection means the end of OpenVPN and FUSE on Mac OS? Those need to add kernel modules and such.

No, I have used OpenVPN throughout the betas without issues, and OSXFUSE added support in version 2.8.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#79

Post by littlewing » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:58 AM UTC

When I first read this I was a little pissed at Apple, but what if brew were to install everything to /brew? It doesn't need to install into /usr/local.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#80

Post by icebraining » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 11:00 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #70

skrause wrote: post #11

Why does brew need to install everything owned by my user in /usr/local? I would honestly prefer if everything installed by brew was owned by root:wheel and brew would gracefully abort if I forgot to run it with sudo. Is all that current mess just so that I don't need sudo for brew?

So you'd want all those programs to run as root? Isn't that against any notion of security?

Why would they run as root, just because they were owned by root? Only brew itself would need to run as root (just like most package managers do anyway).