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.
I think the bigger headache will be the next time you buy a new Macbook with El Capitan or later installed on it, because you'll need to do a song and dance to create the /usr/local directory in the first place.
El Capitan and Homebrew
81–90 of 298 posts
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#82Installed 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.
I think the bigger headache will be the next time you buy a new Macbook with El Capitan or later installed on it, because you'll need to do a song and dance to create the /usr/local directory in the first place.
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#83I'm curious to know if there's a reason everyone installs Homebrew in /usr/local (other than it being the default installation path). I've always chosen to install it in ~/.homebrew and haven't had any problems. Everything I install with Homebrew seems to handle an alternative prefix without issue.
That's a common Unix practice to put system-wide stuff manually managed (as opposed to managed by the OS/distribution) in /usr/local.
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#84Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#85Users 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.
Agreed.
> System Integrity Protection is obnoxious paternalism at best
Couldn't disagree more. The user maintains full control: you can disable it at will, temporarily or permanently. Protections like this are becoming essential as a result of current malware threats. Thanks to System Integrity Protection, we're now much more protected against rootkits and similar attacks. This is a good thing.
I feel like I have to keep defending it because it's perceived as this removal of user freedoms, when it's factually just not the case–you can still do everything you could do before, you just have to restart into recovery mode to do so (to be able to do this without the restart into recovery mode would undermine the security this technology provides). System Integrity Protection is closer in spirit to something like SELinux than anything.
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#86Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#87https://ohthehugemanatee.org/blog/2015/10/01/how-i-got-el-ca...
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#88To be fair, homebrew shouldn't need to change perms, it should follow common unix standards or at least fit in with OSX rather than require a hack. For years I've felt homebrew should really use either /opt/ or ~/.homebrew/ by default.
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#89Installed 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
#90Users 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.
It turns out Haskell Platform was installing symlinks in /usr.[0] Why? There was no need for that and no easy way to get it out or even know it was doing that in the first place. So as a solution people had "uninstaller" programs that would look for gunk like this left by other programs? Ridiculous.
I'm glad Apple is locking this down. If you don't like it turn it off.
[0] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2015-October...