Live data from Hacker News

Homebrew 1.1.0

brew.sh

51–60 of 216 posts

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#51
post #19

Probably stupid question but: how do you update your version?

brew update I just tried `brew upgrade` but that is upgrading not itself, but every package installed with it instead. >:-&

brew update should do it. You might be using too-old a version or hit an update bug. Try:

cd $(brew --repo); git fetch; git reset --hard origin/master; brew update

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#52

I have been very happy with Homebrew some far. What are some good windows alternative? Making the move from OSX to Windows in a week.

If you want Unix-like software, look at msys2 (http://msys2.github.io/). Its package manager is Pacman (the same as Arch Linux).

When I have to use a Windows machine I basically do everything in a msys2 terminal.

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#53
post #34

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 th…

> best-practices

Wat?

How is fundamentally broken dependency management and forcing installed global binaries to be user-owned "best practices"?

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#54

I have been very happy with Homebrew some far. What are some good windows alternative? Making the move from OSX to Windows in a week.

I would recommend chocolatey or Npackd, however chocolatey cannot detect what you have already installed on hard disk.

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#55
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We can't relocate many binary packages (bottles) with dynamic paths like that, unfortunately, or we'd do that.

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#56
post #34

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 th…

> best-practices Wat? How is fundamentally broken dependency management and forcing installed global binaries to be user-owned "best practices"?

Can you rephrase your objection in a less patronising and more constructive way?

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#57
post #37

Just a quick poll. Is anybody still using MacPorts or anything else? If so, why?

Homebrew maintainer view: MacPorts is a good package manager built by smart people and we end up sharing e.g. patches sometimes. I used to use it before Homebrew and it was good. Nowadays it's worth using whichever one takes the approach that feels best to you.

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#58

I have been very happy with Homebrew some far. What are some good windows alternative? Making the move from OSX to Windows in a week.

Windows 10 now has support for the Ubuntu subsystem. You have to flip some settings to enable it and install it, but it's very easy to setup and it creates a complete Linux shell within Windows, including full support for apt-get.

I found the default terminal pretty lacking, but you can now use mintty as the terminal: https://github.com/mintty/wsltty

With this, it's possibly a better Unix experience than macOS. I haven't used it enough to confidently make such a big statement, but it's worked very well so far in my trials.

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#59
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> I'm going to assume the API won't change, even if > I'm using undocumented and warning-spitting methods.

And here I disagree, quite strongly. If I'm using "undocumented and warning-spitting methods" then I know what I have done is a hack and those methods could disappear or change at any time and I should proceed at my own peril.

Re: Homebrew 1.1.0

#60
post #34

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 th…

Thanks for the kind words. You'd be surprised how motivating they are. <3
Post reply on HN