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

Homebrew 1.1.0

brew.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 216 posts

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#31

Post by vr46 »

bluejekyll wrote: post #16
snuxoll wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/usr/local is explicitly for user/administrator managed software versus /usr being for system managed stuff, it's the correct location for this on any UNIX/POSIX-like system.

Yes, sure, but there's always been a presumption in those definitions that you have a multi-user system. I would say that most people today operate their computers as single users. The multiuser paradigm, is more about differing security contexts. For me these locations are an artifact of multiuser systems days, it's generally more desirable for me to store most stuff in my home directory, such that when I upgrade co…

Having brew install to ~user would be grand, not just for portability, but also to isolate it across users.

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#32

Post by pflats »

thedaniel wrote: post #17
sugarraps wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Side-topic: Shouldn't the breaking changes be enough reason to bump the version to 2.0?

relevant discussion here https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/issues/6677

Of specific interest: "This deprecation was announced and these methods removed/undocumented before 1.0.0 was tagged so arguably it was not part of the public API when 1.0.0 shipped."

I'm ambivalent. If I rev 1.0 - 1.1, then I'm going to assume the API won't change, even if I'm using undocumented and warning-spitting methods.

But I shouldn't be doing that, I shouldn't roll in a minor update without at least reading the change log, it's a FOSS project run by a volunteer staff, and brew never swore an oath to follow the laws of versioning as set by semver.org.

If the brew documentation said, "We use semantic versioning," then I'd say the complainants were correct. Otherwise, versions are just versions, and all you can count on is (Major Changes).(Medium Changes).(Minor Changes).(Tiny Changes).(etc.)

edit: Thoughts:

Years and years ago, I spent a lot of time and energy ranting about the fact that Google called GMail "beta software" when it was clearly not feature complete, and beta has a meaning, and we are just destroying a useful system of names for the software testing and release cycle, and…

But in the end, version numbers and development stages are language, and you cannot force your language on others, irregardless of whether or not you'd like to.

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#33

Post by stephenr »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #27
stephenr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which as always been frowned upon Only in the Homebrew backwards-day world is having globally installed software not owned by root "frowned upon".

Hmmm. The UNIX education that's been hammered into me since childhood has said "If you can do it as not-root, don't do it as root".

What part of that UNIX education would cover putting user-owned binaries into /usr/local ?

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#34

Post by AdamN »

I'm going to ditto the positive comments. Kudos to the maintainers - not just for the package itself but for growing it. They successfully went from a hacky page with some scripts, to a big giant repository, to multiple repos, to a fully fledged mature best-practices package manager for macOS with all the bells and whistles.

The sign of a great project isn't just that it does one thing well, but that it grows with the needs of the users and engages with them to constantly make something better without falling prey to bloat. And by that measure, Homebrew gets a gold star.

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#35

Post by vr46 »

mikemcquaid wrote: post #7
vr46 wrote: post #2

Always good news to see progress in Brewland. I personally do not like having it installed in /usr/local and have ensured it never is on my installation, but I've not had the chance to ever discuss with one of their team why they do it and what things may possibly explode by not having Brew installed to /usr/local

We put as much stuff as possible in `/usr/local/Homebrew` and `/usr/local/Cellar` now so hopefully that helps a bit. `/usr/local/bin` and friends are now mostly just symlinks. As mentioned in another comment, we've got some historical and current reasons for this location and build our binary packages (bottles) for there but you can install Homebrew in any location you want: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/mast…

Bottles are good. But I've never hit those other problems, while I have hit issues through using /usr/local.

Perhaps your release of Homebrew is better and safer than you expected? :D

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#36

Post by [deleted] »

mikemcquaid wrote: post #7
vr46 wrote: post #2

Always good news to see progress in Brewland. I personally do not like having it installed in /usr/local and have ensured it never is on my installation, but I've not had the chance to ever discuss with one of their team why they do it and what things may possibly explode by not having Brew installed to /usr/local

We put as much stuff as possible in `/usr/local/Homebrew` and `/usr/local/Cellar` now so hopefully that helps a bit. `/usr/local/bin` and friends are now mostly just symlinks. As mentioned in another comment, we've got some historical and current reasons for this location and build our binary packages (bottles) for there but you can install Homebrew in any location you want: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/mast…

[deleted]

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#38

Post by jordigh »

snuxoll wrote: post #12
bluejekyll wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For C libraries, having it in /usr/local is a benefit, since many already default to looking there, like cmake and autoconf scripts. Otherwise you have to fix that for many build scripts. While I share your misgivings about sticking stuff like this at the "system" level, I think they are right to do so in this case, for simplicities sake.

/usr/local is explicitly for user/administrator managed software versus /usr being for system managed stuff, it's the correct location for this on any UNIX/POSIX-like system.

> POSIX

Annoyingly, the FHS isn't POSIX (nor SUS) and thus not Unix. There's thus no real standardisation on what the filesystem should look like and thus even Guix or Gobolinux can be POSIX candidates.

Even macOS takes advantage of this nonstandardisation by putting stuff in /Applications, /Library and /Users.

The debate about what belongs in /usr, /usr/local, /opt (and hahaha, /opt/local) is mostly subjective opinions about just how local these local things are.

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#39

Post by yoz-y »

dudul wrote: post #29
epmatsw wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure just brew update.

That's what I thought, but after running that it doesn't log any sort of version update.

I have done brew update and now brew --version reports:

Homebrew 1.1.0 Homebrew/homebrew-core (git revision 375a8; last commit 2016-11-07)

It did not mention updating to new version in the output of the update command though.

Post reply on HN