3 ms·
Possibly my ignorance talking in terms of what you're trying to achieve, but can't you just do this? brew remove packagename brew install packagename@vers
by frereubu 8y ago
Possibly my ignorance talking in terms of what you're trying to achieve, but can't you just do this?
brew remove packagename
brew install packagename@versionnumber --force --overwrite
I've done this with Node so I'm using 10 rather than 11.
Edit: my pet gripe with brew is the services syntax. I want to use this:
brew services httpd restart
Not the existing syntax:
brew services restart httpd
But in general I'm really thankful that brew exists and it's in active development.
- saagarjha 8y agoThis only works when the maintainers have decided to keep around the old version of the software, which is only done for certain popular formulae. Otherwise they get removed quite quickly from the main tap.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- frereubu 8y agoAh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
- shaki-dora 8y agoThere are older versions of some, usually larger, libraries n brew, such as node@10. But those are maintained explicitly in cases where some other important package depends on them. “Node@10” is really more of a different package than name@version.
- bkanber 8y agoThe problem with that is, using readline 7 as an example, you need to have had readline 7's image cached on your machine, or it still needs to be 'tappable' or whatever in order to do that. In this case, brew master _only_ had readline 8 available, so if you never had readline 7 installed on your machine, it was inaccessible without bothersome workarounds. In most cases, brew just works. That's great. But it's also used primarily by developers, and I can't imagine this is an uncommon scenario.