News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on El Capitan and Homebrew. Parent comment

Re:El Capitan and Homebrew by tptacek on Thursday October 01, 2015 @12:47PM (#10312527)
No, /usr/local is normally 755 root:root (or whatever the effective equivalent is). Homebrew wants it to be 775 root:admin, so that users with the admin bit can write to it. That's not standard.

People keep writing here as if El Cap removes /usr/local entirely. It does not. /usr/local is there by default. You only have to go into recovery mode if you've somehow removed it yourself.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:El Capitan and Homebrew by quesera on Thursday October 01, 2015 @01:09PM (#10312689)
> Homebrew wants it to be 775 root:admin

It's worse than that. Homebrew wants 775 $(whoami):admin.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:El Capitan and Homebrew by mzs on Thursday October 01, 2015 @02:39PM (#10313536)
quesera's reply points-out just how bad it is, but even for just 775 root:admin I would have to use sudo (plus edit the sudoers or /usr/bin/login -p first) anyway:

  $ /usr/bin/env -i /bin/sh -c \
    'id | grep -lw admin >/dev/null && echo admin || echo non-admin'
  non-admin
The problem is I have no problem using sudo, but homebrew does (like it wants make all to happen as me).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:El Capitan and Homebrew by OJFord on Thursday October 01, 2015 @03:48PM (#10314137)
Yeah, the more I read this thread, the more I'm thinking "why is that?" - `apt-get` et al have no problem with you using sudo, why does `brew` scare you into an alternative? 'because Mac'?
[ Parent | on HN ]