4 ms·

Are you referring to the `--prefix` option that `configure` takes in the traditional unix `configure && make install` process? (EDIT: I didn't mean to sound li

Are you referring to the `--prefix` option that `configure` takes in the traditional unix `configure && make install` process? (EDIT: I didn't mean to sound like I was correcting you. In fact I'm sure you know this stuff better than me. I now see that there's both a commonly-honored environment variable "PREFIX" and the command-line option to configure I mentioned, and I'm going to claim that the fact that there's two degrees of freedom and I'd forgotten about one of them kind of backs up my points!) If so, while I agree that that serves the purpose and avoids use of `sudo`, I would think that the following two drawbacks are severe: 1. It's a lot (really, too much?) to ask of the community of laptop users who wish to use command line utilities -- we don't want to make using the command line the province of real unix experts only; everyone is a beginner at some point after all. 2. Not all software will offer this option.

pritambaral 9y ago
The reasons you supply are partly why I said "there was a thing". It isn't as much of a thing in these `curl ... | sh` and `docker run` and Electron apps days. But the first reason you cited can be handled gracefully by package managers at least (including Homebrew), if only they took the effort.
- Myrmornis 9y ago
  But homebrew does use `make install` in many, many formulae doesn't it? homebrew-core/Formula$ grep 'system.*make.*install' * | wc -l 2774 I don't think I quite understand the complaints that the unix traditionalists have against homebrew. I don't mean to imply that there are no valid ones; I'd like to understand.
  - pritambaral 9y ago
    Preface: I don't argue either in favour or against homebrew here. From the limited number of times I had to set up homebrew, I noticed the official method tells the user to take over /usr/local/ (via a `sudo chown ...`). They could have made the process use ~/.local, but don't. And because of the official position on using /usr/local/, lots of homebrew formulae assume and depend on /usr/local/. Without taking the side of the "unix traditionalists" you speak of, I can understand their point. Homebrew doesn't have to take over a system location for user-account specific software, but it does.

pritambaral 9y ago

The reasons you supply are partly why I said "there was a thing". It isn't as much of a thing in these `curl ... | sh` and `docker run` and Electron apps days. But the first reason you cited can be handled gracefully by package managers at least (including Homebrew), if only they took the effort.

Myrmornis 9y ago
But homebrew does use `make install` in many, many formulae doesn't it? homebrew-core/Formula$ grep 'system.*make.*install' * | wc -l 2774 I don't think I quite understand the complaints that the unix traditionalists have against homebrew. I don't mean to imply that there are no valid ones; I'd like to understand.
- pritambaral 9y ago
  Preface: I don't argue either in favour or against homebrew here. From the limited number of times I had to set up homebrew, I noticed the official method tells the user to take over /usr/local/ (via a `sudo chown ...`). They could have made the process use ~/.local, but don't. And because of the official position on using /usr/local/, lots of homebrew formulae assume and depend on /usr/local/. Without taking the side of the "unix traditionalists" you speak of, I can understand their point. Homebrew doesn't have to take over a system location for user-account specific software, but it does.