El Capitan and Homebrew • Hacker News Board

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#271

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:16 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #130

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…

Well, if we somehow knew for sure that you'll always be able to disable it, sure, this feature is fine. But Apple can't be trusted -- they sell two very popular lines of computers (iPhones and iPads) that are completely locked down. It's not unreasonable to be worried that they'll try to move towards locking down their other lines also. Not to mention that they're a remarkably developer-hostile company and probably w…

"But Apple can't be trusted"

You haven't given a reason why. And no, the existence of iOS is not a reason.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#272

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:22 PM UTC

schmichael wrote: post #217

superchink wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homebrew does not advocate installing things as root. You can read more about it here: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew/blob/master/share/doc/h...

Fantastic! Then why is this an issue?

They want /usr/local to be owned by you.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#273

Post by thomnific » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:34 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #177

robbles wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason I switched to HomeBrew, after attempting to use MacPorts for several years, was that the formulas all actually worked and resulted in installations that weren't horribly broken and/or reliant on 10 different additions to my PATH and environment variables. Homebrew may have some questionable policies, but at least it works well and has recipes that successfully compile. It also tells you why recipes aren't…

Ditto. And Homebrew's policy of avoiding installation of built-in packages by default means that you don't accidentally break your whole system when MacPorts shadows a critical core package.

Maybe you didn't know about port select (like me when I started using Macports):

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6612009/macports-port-sel...

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#274

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:42 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#275

Post by __d » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 11:15 PM UTC

potatosareok wrote: post #62

fit2rule wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is /usr/local for, if its not for locally installed (by the user) sub-components? Just curious whats wrong with using /usr/local. This is what its for, after all ..

/usr/local makes sense to me if you've installed brew with sudo. But as other comment says, it's weird to me to have files owned by login user in system directory. It's such a rare scenario now I guess of multiple people on same machine, but isn't user home directory place for files owned by login user?

Typically /usr/local relies on group permissions: the accounts that you trust to build and install stuff are added to, eg. 'admin' group, and /usr/local is group writable for admin with the group s-bit set.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#276

Post by evolve2k » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 11:17 PM UTC

dafstone wrote: post #146

I installed El Capitan this morning and was expecting to have to do this - I did not. chown stayed owned to me properly, brew functioned as it was before... everything fine.

Did you do anything in advance of the install? Eg some people were mentioning earlier to move files out of bin/local before upgrade then copy them back in. Do anything like that?

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#277

Post by evolve2k » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 11:18 PM UTC

dafstone wrote: post #146

I installed El Capitan this morning and was expecting to have to do this - I did not. chown stayed owned to me properly, brew functioned as it was before... everything fine.

Did you do anything in advance of the install? Eg some people were mentioning earlier to move files out of usr/local before upgrade then copy them back in. Do anything like that?

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#278

Post by tvon » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 11:20 PM UTC

spinlock wrote: post #235

tvon wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homebrew can be installed anywhere, and after ~2 years of having it outside of /usr/local I have not run into any problems. There is a disclaimer somewhere that states some "packages" may not work well with this setup, but that seems like an upstream bug to me. Things should not require things to live in a specific path or prefix.

Where does your homebrew live? I have a few different users on my mac that I want to all share resources so I've kept it in /usr/local (also the "easiest" because it was the default). TBH, things like this make me really mis debian. It's really nice when your package manager is a first class citizen (and geared towards software development rather than consumption).

It's in /opt, so it's just:

    PATH=/opt/homebrew/bin:/opt/homebrew/sbin:$PATH

I considered a ~/ directory but wanted it available for the rare occasion when there is someone ssh'd into my machine (though I didn't go so far as to update the system-wide shell configs to use it.

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#279

Post by snotrockets » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 12:24 AM UTC

eloisant wrote: post #29

alex1 wrote: post #17

I'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.

But not to 775 it and change it's owner from root:root (both of which Homebrew does)

Re: El Capitan and Homebrew

#280

Post by lsaferite » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 2:03 AM UTC

rattray wrote: post #203

lsaferite wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Yeah, I couldn't resist. I never understand down-voting something you disagree with so I'm shocked each time it happens to me as I rarely down-vote people myself. I just wish someone would require you enter a reason for down-voting.