4 ms·
There has been a lot of talk in HN comments recently about Homebrew installing to `/usr/local`. With macOS Sierra, the user can no longer write to this folder w
by emdowling 10y ago
There has been a lot of talk in HN comments recently about Homebrew installing to `/usr/local`. With macOS Sierra, the user can no longer write to this folder without specifically owning it. Is there a security risk here and if so, whats the best workaround?
- elmigranto 10y agoNewer versions install in `/usr/local/Homebrew`, older versions "migrate" there: http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/253404/how-does-homebrew-no-longer-need-ownership-of-usr-local http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/253404/how-does-hom...
- emdowling 10y agoAwesome, thanks for that. Would be good for it to be listed on the article. It only tells you that it no longer requires ownership after you have been asked to give it for the migration.
- netheril96 10y agoI have a hard time understanding the "migration", even after reading all the related issues. Homebrew still writes into /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/Cellar, nothing different from the past. What exactly changes?
- oefrha 10y agoWriting to /usr/local/bin is not the same as writing to /usr/local. We don't drop a README.md in /usr/local anymore, for instance, and you can change the ownership of /usr/local back to root:wheel after the migration.
- jwarren 10y agoI've always installed to ~/.homebrew, and never encountered any problems.
- sigjuice 10y agoDoes this mean all your packages are built from source?
- aorth 10y agoI always install to /opt/brew and I see a few packages compile, but I see bottles being used too. Now that you mention it, I guess most software that needs to link against dynamic libraries wouldn't work from bottle unless your setup was the same as where it was compiled... hmm. I don't mind. :)