Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

El Capitan and Homebrew

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 298 posts

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#201

Post by npongratz »

joshmoz wrote: post #172
mapgrep wrote: post #163

Macports, meanwhile, continues to work quite well because it 1. places packages in /opt and 2. has always installed via sudo. Macports just has a much more robust philosophy of building its own universe largely separate from OS X, and only rarely impacted by system updates. The downside is that it takes forever to install the first few packages. Homebrew offers a much faster initial install because it leans on OS X l…

Agreed, I don't understand why so many people use homebrew instead of macports. Macports seems to be immune to so many issues that complicate homebrew, and I love that it keeps everything in its own dir, '/opt'. Easy to see what it installed, and easy to uninstall (rm -r /opt). The commands are also easier for me to remember -- no awkward, overstretched analogy. I often help people start hacking on open source projec…

I'd advise caution doing an `rm -r /opt`, and suggest it might be more precise (and generally better) to `rm -r /opt/local`. Macports will typically install to /opt/local, and in my experience, stuff like vagrant and certain VPN clients will install into subdirectories of /opt.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#202

Post by alayne »

joshmoz wrote: post #172
mapgrep wrote: post #163

Macports, meanwhile, continues to work quite well because it 1. places packages in /opt and 2. has always installed via sudo. Macports just has a much more robust philosophy of building its own universe largely separate from OS X, and only rarely impacted by system updates. The downside is that it takes forever to install the first few packages. Homebrew offers a much faster initial install because it leans on OS X l…

Agreed, I don't understand why so many people use homebrew instead of macports. Macports seems to be immune to so many issues that complicate homebrew, and I love that it keeps everything in its own dir, '/opt'. Easy to see what it installed, and easy to uninstall (rm -r /opt). The commands are also easier for me to remember -- no awkward, overstretched analogy. I often help people start hacking on open source projec…

I started using Homebrew when I was a new Mac user because MacPorts didn't work out of the box through the corporate firewall. It's kept working for me so I haven't found a reason to try MacPorts again.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#203

Post by rattray »

lsaferite wrote: post #119
eddieroger wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Mac users will never need to do this, and the short reboot cycle is, to many, worth the extra security rootless brings. It's hardly WTF.

Being required to reboot my computer into recovery mode just to add a directory is certainly a WTF worthy situation. BTW, thanks for the down vote?

From the hn guidelines:

> Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

(though personally I'm not sure why you were downvoted originally)

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#204

Post by Karunamon »

mahouse wrote: post #96
rolux wrote: post #18

How to disable SIP altogether: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/09/os-x-10-11-el-capitan-t...

That requires nvram manipulation... Would it work well on a Hackintosh?

IIRC, all of the "nvram" stuff on a hackintosh actually exists as a flat config file in /Extras read by whatever bootloader you're using.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#205

Post by OJFord »

_b8r0 wrote: post #86

To 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.

    >  it should follow common unix standards
Isn't /usr/local?

    > or at least fit in with OSX
It did - before now /usr/local was available unprivileged with ownership.

    > rather than require a hack
It only needs that now, since requirements to "fit in with OSX" have changed. That's not Homebrew's fault - they need a fast solution. Kudos in my book for responding before it's a problem.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#206

Post by theptip »

DannyBee wrote: post #152
quesera wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BSD and Linux use /usr/local, it's not universal. But /usr/local has never been writable by non-privileged users. Homebrew depends on that nonstandard and undesireable permissions model. Apple doesn't bend to accommodate an inappropriate use. Hombrew doesn't want to use a location that is outside the default PATH, and they don't want to install with proper permissions, so they purposefully misinterpret the "standard"…

A. There is no real standard here B. Apple doesn't bend, period. They don't actually care whether the use is appropriate or inappropriate. C. Blaming this on homebrew is hilarious Remind me again why i should need to reboot into recovery mode to create a directory?

There is a standard: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2015/pr-worms-digest-plastics-09....

This is from RedHat. Not implemented by everyone, but modern OSes (e.g. CoreOS) seem to follow the patterns. CoreOS also do everything in their power to prevent you from mounting /usr as writeable.

Perhaps that doesn't pass your bar for 'real' though since it's not globally implemented ;)

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#207

Post by Karunamon »

sneak wrote: post #129
Osmium wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Users should have full control over their own machines. 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 sim…

Many of the "I want full and complete control of my system at all times!" people mostly just mean "I want to continue doing it the way I have done it for the last fifteen years and will resist any change to that traditional method on principle". See also: Android

Obnoxious changes ought to be resisted. For me as a sysadmin who doesn't need their hand held, this is just one more annoyance to deal with.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#208

Post by baldfat »

pjmlp wrote: post #133
baldfat wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why I said I searched and got the standard for the person who said "certainly it isn't the standard." We have the ultimate resource to know the answer to any question that does have an answer. I gave this down voted "I googled it for you" because people need to just look up what the Standard is and than speak from a position of knowledge and not some vague non-answer. For the still lazy the Unix File Hierarch…

You are being downvoted because it is a GNU/Linux specific standard, not something that has been adopted by the UNIX standard, POSIX. And no, I am not the one downvoting you.

Well I feel like an idiot since I absolutely know that but when I was searching I was looking at Unix with no /usr and than went brain dead and thought it was showing /usr as a Linux issue with no standard for /usr. Thank you for correcting me..

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#209

Post by trjordan »

joshmoz wrote: post #172
mapgrep wrote: post #163

Macports, meanwhile, continues to work quite well because it 1. places packages in /opt and 2. has always installed via sudo. Macports just has a much more robust philosophy of building its own universe largely separate from OS X, and only rarely impacted by system updates. The downside is that it takes forever to install the first few packages. Homebrew offers a much faster initial install because it leans on OS X l…

Agreed, I don't understand why so many people use homebrew instead of macports. Macports seems to be immune to so many issues that complicate homebrew, and I love that it keeps everything in its own dir, '/opt'. Easy to see what it installed, and easy to uninstall (rm -r /opt). The commands are also easier for me to remember -- no awkward, overstretched analogy. I often help people start hacking on open source projec…

Macports never worked for me. I'm not sure if I'm not smart enough to make it work, but there was always something where updates would fail, or some package was broken.

Homebrew just worked, and when it breaks, brew doctor is typically spot-on in telling me how to fix it. I've never had the time to figure out why MacPorts gave me trouble.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#210

Post by dpatriarche »

osxrand wrote: post #193
matwood wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is even _root_ can't add the missing /usr/local, because SIP prevents even root from touching /usr. This goes against all that I have read and my own experiences with the betas. Maybe Apple changed something last minute. See here: http://www.macworld.com/article/2948140/os-x/private-i-el-ca... The specifics of System Integrity Protection are that no user, application, or process will be able to write fi…

The bit you quoted doesn't contradict what the OP stated, if /usr/local _does not_ exist, not even root can create it. If it exists, we can use it as before. Considering how many times I've installed OS X, I can't recall if /usr/local is there by default (excluding 10.11 for the moment). Will have to do another few installs and check.

On my Yosemite system /usr/local was created by default when the OS was installed.
Post reply on HN