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

Homebrew 1.0.0

brew.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 255 posts

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#61

Post by cupantae »

paublyrne wrote: post #38
Flimm wrote: post #19

I'm excited about Homebrew potentially coming to Linux. When I first started using OS X more regularly, I was surprised by how better an experience OS X + Homebrew is compared to Ubuntu/Debian repositories + PPAs/third-party repositories.

I don't use Linux myself, but am curious as to why this has been so heavily downvoted.

I personally don't use Mac OS(X), but what I understand is that Homebrew is a project designed to give the functionality of a Linux command-line package manager to OSX.

For most (all? Slackware...) Linux distributions, there is ONE package manager: for Debian/Ubuntu it's APT, for Arch it's Pacman, for RedHat & friends it's RPM, etc. There is exactly one, because all the files which aren't user data or configuration are owned by some package or other. It's all well and good when there's a clear need for this on OSX, and so Homebrew must keep up to date with the official software management and keep itself contained, not breaking anything. Having a second package manager on Linux, which doesn't treat Linux as the main target platform, seems both pointless and asking for trouble.

Alternatively, you could be harsh and figure that the downvoters were saying, "No, you don't prefer Homebrew. You prefer your distribution's package manager, and thou shalt use it correctly."

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#62

Post by pivo »

oefrha wrote: post #55
princetman wrote: post #12

"brew update Error: /usr/local is not writable. You should change the ownership and permissions of /usr/local back to your user account: sudo chown -R $(whoami) /usr/local . . . ==> Migrating HOMEBREW_REPOSITORY (please wait)... ==> Migrated HOMEBREW_REPOSITORY to /usr/local/Homebrew! Homebrew no longer needs to have ownership of /usr/local. If you wish you can return /usr/local to its default ownership with: sudo ch…

I see no problem in this. We need writing permissions to /usr/local to finish our migration (as we always did). Once you finish the migration we (hopefully) never write directly to /usr/local again.

I think princetman was being sincere that he loved the experience. homebrew went to the trouble of telling us that we could restore the default permissions to /usr/local, that's nice.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#63

Post by adrianN »

dudul wrote: post #44

Homebrew is really great, and I recently discovered cask (I know, lame, but I'm a MacOS noob :) ) and it's so nice. No more downloading freaking dmg, mounting, dragging, clicking a bunch of popups, no more visiting the app store. How is this thing not integrated in MacOS yet?

> no more visiting the app store

You answered your own question.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#64

Post by strictfp »

Flimm wrote: post #19

I'm excited about Homebrew potentially coming to Linux. When I first started using OS X more regularly, I was surprised by how better an experience OS X + Homebrew is compared to Ubuntu/Debian repositories + PPAs/third-party repositories.

My experience is quite the opposite. Lots of missing packages in brew compared to debian. And brew has been nothing but trouble for all the devs in my team. It keeps messing up /usr/local permissions for some reason. And if you don't update brew frequently it will bork itself. Apt-get or better yet aptitude is rock solid.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#67

Post by epenn »

oefrha wrote: post #55
princetman wrote: post #12

"brew update Error: /usr/local is not writable. You should change the ownership and permissions of /usr/local back to your user account: sudo chown -R $(whoami) /usr/local . . . ==> Migrating HOMEBREW_REPOSITORY (please wait)... ==> Migrated HOMEBREW_REPOSITORY to /usr/local/Homebrew! Homebrew no longer needs to have ownership of /usr/local. If you wish you can return /usr/local to its default ownership with: sudo ch…

I see no problem in this. We need writing permissions to /usr/local to finish our migration (as we always did). Once you finish the migration we (hopefully) never write directly to /usr/local again.

I'm fairly certain you misinterpreted that. He was complimenting the smooth process.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#68

Post by dudul »

adrianN wrote: post #63
dudul wrote: post #44

Homebrew is really great, and I recently discovered cask (I know, lame, but I'm a MacOS noob :) ) and it's so nice. No more downloading freaking dmg, mounting, dragging, clicking a bunch of popups, no more visiting the app store. How is this thing not integrated in MacOS yet?

> no more visiting the app store You answered your own question.

True for Cask, but unless I'm mistaken, cask is a plugin for Homebrew. It is not part of the vanilla install.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#69

Post by danielsamuels »

sergiotapia wrote: post #60
danielsamuels wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Postgres.app[1] would make your life even easier. :) [1]: http://postgresapp.com/

I switched to use the homebrew version because I couldn't get the pg tools and such to work from the command line. Nobody got time for that. :P

Fair enough, I've personally never had that experience.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#70

Post by paublyrne »

cupantae wrote: post #61
paublyrne wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't use Linux myself, but am curious as to why this has been so heavily downvoted.

I personally don't use Mac OS(X), but what I understand is that Homebrew is a project designed to give the functionality of a Linux command-line package manager to OSX. For most (all? Slackware...) Linux distributions, there is ONE package manager: for Debian/Ubuntu it's APT, for Arch it's Pacman, for RedHat & friends it's RPM, etc. There is exactly one, because all the files which aren't user data or configuration a…

Ha, thanks that's a comprehensive answer. Maybe have been a bit of both, looks like the downvotes have been countered now anyway.
Post reply on HN