Does anyone use MacPorts/Fink anymore? What are the use cases for them?
I like MacPorts over Homebrew because MacPorts lives in its own directory. Homebrew can hose your system binaries and that was enough for me to never use it.
Homebrew 1.4.0
141–150 of 219 posts
Re: Homebrew 1.4.0
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly! I face this with my government clients. They spend very little time thinking of the actual amount (even if it's $30k), and more time about "how are we going to purchase this??" Tip Jars aren't an effective way to get money for this stuff, at least if you want money from companies. It's good for "aw this library helped me, let me throw in $5" from individuals.
Tip jars and pay what you can are effective. Bs corporate red tape is the problem
The red tape is needed for legal reasons. As a company you can't just throw around money via Paypal, gofundme or whatever, the risk is too high that it will end up being a tax/audit problem.
Give a company a proper bill with VAT, and they'll stuff you with money.
Re: Homebrew 1.4.0
#143Edit: Wow...within 20 seconds of me posting this, an update to "Command Line Tools" version 9.2 showed up in the App Store app. So, if you have this problem, check updates again. Anyone else getting a warning about command line tools? $ brew doctor tells me: Warning: A newer Command Line Tools release is available. Update them from Software Update in the App Store. Looking around, I see that there are two sets of the…
I got the same warning, opened Appstore.app and found a pending update for the Command Line Tools that wasn't there earlier today.
Re: Homebrew 1.4.0
#144Does anyone use MacPorts/Fink anymore? What are the use cases for them?
MacPorts user here. Uses case are the same, but: - MacPorts does not track you by default with Google analytics. - MacPorts lives by default in a self-contained directory tree. - MacPorts tends to be more stable than Homebrew, but that’s just my personal experience. - I didn’t like the slogans Homebrew used for years, implying MacPorts wasn’t good quality.
Also Macports works in a multi user environment without problems (as long as one either gives all users sudo access or sudo port access).
Re: Homebrew 1.4.0
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly! I face this with my government clients. They spend very little time thinking of the actual amount (even if it's $30k), and more time about "how are we going to purchase this??" Tip Jars aren't an effective way to get money for this stuff, at least if you want money from companies. It's good for "aw this library helped me, let me throw in $5" from individuals.
Tip jars and pay what you can are effective. Bs corporate red tape is the problem
Are they? Usually unless you're known, they bring in next to nothing.
Re: Homebrew 1.4.0
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never noticed it. A lot of text scrolls across the screen during the installation.
what do you want them to do?
At first install, prompt the user to opt-in? Occasionally re-prompt a user, say, once per year to choose to opt-out if they’re opted in, just to check they’re still cool with it and haven’t forgotten and/or changed their mind on how comfortable they are with the practice? People’s opinions on that sort of thing don’t always remain static.
Re: Homebrew 1.4.0
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never noticed it. A lot of text scrolls across the screen during the installation.
what do you want them to do?
Ask for permission - opt-in not opt-out.
The current behaviour isn't sufficient for the new GDPR requirements coming in May. Contributors and any relevant companies (or their subsidiaries) in the EU could be liable.
Re: Homebrew 1.4.0
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Existing installs were not prompted. You had to catch it in the patch notes, IIRC.
Not prompted but were notified.
The notification when it first came out wasn’t really noticeable for a tool that frequently has a lot of output an average user running `brew upgrade` would be used to ignoring. Prompting would have been the better choice. I didn’t notice until the change hit HN and created a bit of a shit storm.
PS: Despite my feelings of disagreement on how brew handled this, I still appreciate your work.
Re: Homebrew 1.4.0
#149> Homebrew requires the CLT on all but the latest version of macOS (to avoid copious workarounds in formulae) Why? What are these workarounds? The linked PR didn't explain, and as someone who's still got one machine on 10.12 I'd really rather not have to keep CLT installed as well. Edit: Wow, the maintainer on that PR is a real jerk. He refused to answer a legitimate question (and locked the PR at the same time) beca…
Why is it necessary for people to be polite in the face of rudeness? Especially when the person expected to be polite is volunteering their time for you?
To enlighten the polite people who have not insulted Homebrew maintainers: the issue with requiring the CLT on everything but the latest version of macOS is because of the horrible workarounds. Grep the Homebrew taps for "Xcode-only", "CLT.installed?", or "clock_gettime" for an idea of the amount of hacks required. I don't know precisely why this occurs but it's related to Apple only shipping the latest SDK in Xcode rather than one that matches the version of macOS that Xcode is running on.
Re: Homebrew 1.4.0
#150> Homebrew requires the CLT on all but the latest version of macOS (to avoid copious workarounds in formulae) Why? What are these workarounds? The linked PR didn't explain, and as someone who's still got one machine on 10.12 I'd really rather not have to keep CLT installed as well. Edit: Wow, the maintainer on that PR is a real jerk. He refused to answer a legitimate question (and locked the PR at the same time) beca…
Good luck writing your own version and supporting it. Be sure to post your progress.
The implication is that having commit rights on a highly visible and popular open-source project somehow absolves the maintainer of the need for patience and civility. I would expect quite the contrary, as a matter of fact.