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

81–90 of 255 posts

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#81

Post by rocket69 »

strictfp wrote: post #64
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.

They are more solid, but never up to date with new bits, so you're stuck managing your own curated list of ppa's.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#82

Post by wyuenho »

lloeki wrote: post #36
matt4077 wrote: post #4

Among all the software I use, Homebrew must be the one giving me the least trouble. I have 100 installed packages and I don't remember the last time anything didn't work. Plus, for anything I care about, updates seem to always take less than a day, usually it's almost instantaneous. In comparison with MacPorts before, it's like night and day. npm/pip/mix/bundler all seem to periodically conspire to waste a few hours…

The dire status of MacPorts and Fink was the impetus behind Arch OS X back then, but Homebrew's success and ease of use combined with the build-from-source design (it was a real plus not having to host binary packages at the time) preempted that effort. Some design choices still rub me the wrong way to this day though (quibbles to some, but for a couple use cases it can matter), that's why I'm trying hard to bring ba…

MacPorts started as a build-from-source package manager. The introduction of prebuilt binary packages is a recent addition. It was added only because some packages took a really long time to build.

Fink is full of old packages, but MacPorts ports are pretty up to date. There are still lots of devs maintaining MacPorts these days. So I don't know what dire status you were talking about.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#83

Post by Nursie »

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.

Why?

By which I mean that apt is fantastic AFAICT and totally integrated into Ubuntu and Debian. Why would you want a third party package manager?

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#84

Post by mikemcquaid »

rogual wrote: post #35

As a user, Homebrew is a great experience. As a package maintainer, though, one thing surprised me: you can't make your package depend on a specific version -- even a major version -- of a library. So if MyApp uses YourLib 1.0, everything is fine until YourLib 2.0 comes out, at which point users doing `brew install myapp` will start getting cryptic compiler errors. I have no choice but to drop whatever I'm doing and…

This is a valid concern and it's something we're actively working on: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/issues/620

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#85

Post by tibbon »

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

After doing both homebrew and Postgresapp for a while, I've switched to using Docker to run it. It's really nice because then on a per-app basis I can have separate versions easily and all checked into version control.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#86

Post by tibbon »

kersten wrote: post #3

brew update brew --version

Mine gave me a permissions error, trying `brew doctor` now. I wonder if I have something configured incorrectly from a few years ago.

I do with the update announcement page said how to best update (in case there were any major changes).

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#87

Post by rafadc »

tangue wrote: post #51
_kyran wrote: post #5

Thanks to Mike and everyone else that has contributed to Homebrew. I couldn't imagine how difficult it would be managing command line programs on a Mac without it.

I'm wondering if Macs would be as successful with developers without homebrew.

No

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#88

Post by moridin007 »

RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #78
davb wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to MacPorts following the Google Analytics debacle [1] and how it was handled [2]. I had this expectation that MacPorts would be backwards and full of ancient packages but it's not - it's fantastic! The package repository is really good, the project itself is stable and it doesn't have a default-on analytics component aggregating my package data at Google. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11566720…

Wow. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I recently got a new mac and I decided to give brew a spin as my package manager. I was unimpressed with many aspects of the experience- for example, getting weird snarky messages and incorrect advice when I attempted to install texlive- but this seals it. Back to Macports it is. I'll be sure to tell others about this.

Been using Brew for as long as i can remember. Most of the message usually require a `brew doctor` or `brew update` command which completely fixes the issue. And i cant even remember the last time i had to do that..

When they brought in brew cask i was completely blown away and i use brew exclusively for installing almost everything on my mac.

I tried macports at first, but bailed out of that after i shot myself in the foot inside the hour. Switched to brew and have never looked back since.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#89

Post by mikemcquaid »

s_kilk wrote: post #29
barpet wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would bash be faster ? Would not you essentially call the same C lib stuff anyway ?

It would at least save the process-start overhead, plus loading the ruby vm and modules/gems.

Exactly. For a simple string comparison Bash is far faster (although Homebrew doesn't use require any gems, just FYI).

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#90

Post by kbutler »

rwl4 wrote: post #40
rogual wrote: post #35

As a user, Homebrew is a great experience. As a package maintainer, though, one thing surprised me: you can't make your package depend on a specific version -- even a major version -- of a library. So if MyApp uses YourLib 1.0, everything is fine until YourLib 2.0 comes out, at which point users doing `brew install myapp` will start getting cryptic compiler errors. I have no choice but to drop whatever I'm doing and…

It's for this very reason that I'm still one of those old-school guys who still uses MacPorts. I was horrified to see this, and in my brief time using it, it actually caused me real problems, so I went back.

I almost went the other way (from ports to brew) because of the complex manual procedure required to fix ports when you upgrade the OS:

https://trac.macports.org/wiki/Migration

After going through the migration, it isn't that bad, but it was surprising (horrifying?) to me that ports was completely broken after an OS upgrade.

Post reply on HN