2 ms·
> You'd run into exactly the same problem. I think you misunderstand the problem. /usr/local exists in OSX, and is one of the recommended install locations for
by quesera 11y ago
> You'd run into exactly the same problem.
I think you misunderstand the problem. /usr/local exists in OSX, and is one of the recommended install locations for user software. But if you change the permissions on /usr/local, OSX will interpret that as damage and fix it. Homebrew does this, which is in conflict with all uses of /usr/local in Unix history.
> and (b) it can be written to by a normal user.
Critically, no. This is a security risk. A larger one back when multiuser systems were the only Unix systems, but still a risk. Violates all standards, even the ones OSX doesn't attempt to comply with.
- deong 11y agoOh, I know it's a huge problem on multi-user systems. I was just pointing out that homebrew treats it that way so they can have sudo-less access. Technically I guess it's not world writable in a default homebrew install though, just owned by a normal user. Which also defeats the purpose of /usr/local really, but I've never found that design decision from Homebrew to be very good. It is entirely possible I misunderstood SIP. The first thing I did was disable it, and I haven't bothered any more about it. My impression though was that it locked down all "system directories", however Apple chooses to define that. Which would disallow changing the permissions on /usr/local, but also would disallow creating new files or directories under a protected directory. Is that not what it does?