Homebrew 4.0.0

Post by dncornholio » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 4:00 PM UTC

aliqot wrote: post #215

t8sr wrote: post #67

As an old hand who was around when homebrew started, I feel obliged to let people know there are alternatives. If you find brew's take-over-your-system-and-youll-thank-me approach off putting, and/or you value stability over the coolness factor, MacPorts is still alive and well ( https://www.macports.org ), and in-fact has basically all the same packages brew does. In 18 years of using MacPorts, it's never messed up…

MacPorts makes no effort to not look abandoned. It's very much 'the old way' of doing things from the look of the website to the terseness of the syntax. Before you take offense, I say this as a member of that generation. These days if you have an ugly website, and opaque syntax, you're considered to be an abandoned project. Agree with it or not, your website sends a signal to the user and MacPort's signal says "it'l…

Post by shepherdjerred » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 4:03 PM UTC

ianai wrote: post #98

brookst wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they want to include the most common packages in their unit tests, or understand usage patterns so they can prioritize development? It’s very hard to write and maintain good software without knowing how it’s used. No package manager needs to know how you specifically use it, but aggregate data and the ability to identify scenarios it does not handle well are both very important for SW lifecycle.

It's 2023. Hard drive space shouldn't be an issue. Test installing the full software suite, make it work, and you know the lesser installs will all work.

Post by dlivingston » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

tasuki wrote: post #77

lrvick wrote: post #44

Reminder that nothing in Homebrew has any signing or attempt at supply chain integrity. Now that they are moving away from clients using git, so even git commit signing is off the table now. When you install brew you are giving hundreds of people (or anyone who has access to their Github accounts) full remote code execution on your machine. Never ever use brew on a machine you use to access production.

I've been using Linux for the past 18 years or so, but damn do the M1 macs look interesting. How does one manage packages on a mac?

Post by foobarqux » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

t8sr wrote: post #67

As an old hand who was around when homebrew started, I feel obliged to let people know there are alternatives. If you find brew's take-over-your-system-and-youll-thank-me approach off putting, and/or you value stability over the coolness factor, MacPorts is still alive and well ( https://www.macports.org ), and in-fact has basically all the same packages brew does. In 18 years of using MacPorts, it's never messed up…

Post by mdaniel » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 4:08 PM UTC

lockhouse wrote: post #134

Chiron1991 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excluding 3rd party tools like Homebrew, one dosn't. The native 'package manager' is the Apple App Store. You can also manually download and install .dmg files of applications (much like .deb or .rpm).

macOS also has .pkg installer packages that are native. The only issue is that there is no uninstall functionality built in to them unless the package provides their own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installer_(macOS)

    PKGID="${1:-}"

    PKG_ROOT="$(pkgutil --pkg-info "$PKGID" \
        | awk -F: '/location:/{print $2}' \
        | sed -e 's,^[ \t]*,/,')"
    
    pkgutil --only-files --files "$PKGID" \
        | join_paths_0 "$PKG_ROOT" \
        | xargs -0 $dry_run rm -v
    pkgutil --only-dirs --files "$PKGID" \
        | sort -r \
        | join_paths_0 "$PKG_ROOT" \
        | xargs -0 $dry_run rmdir
    pkgutil --forget "$PKGID"