3 ms·
Seems like a good move. Less cruft and don't have to deal with managing versions between the one you want and the one already on the system.
by Reedx 7y ago
Seems like a good move. Less cruft and don't have to deal with managing versions between the one you want and the one already on the system.
- xmichael999 7y agoI can't recall using the built-in version in ages, it is pretty much always homebrew before you even start. So I think this is a great move.
- rrix2 7y agoHow is homebrew installed?
- grzm 7y agohttps://brew.sh https://brew.sh
- aquabeagle 7y agoRight... /usr/bin/ruby -e ...
- Operyl 7y agoOh my god, it's the end of the world, Homebrew will never be able to make another installer that doesn't use ruby ever again! /s But let's be real, they're either going to make a .pkg, or just use a shell script or .. really, there's dozens of ways. They've been using an alternative version of ruby packaged in the homebrew folder for a while now. The only part of the process that requires System Ruby is the installer, now.
- delinka 7y agohttps://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/installation/#building-from-source https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/installation/#bui...
- george_perez 7y agoHomebrew comes with a portable Ruby in the install script. https://twitter.com/MacHomebrew/status/1136249501252038662 https://twitter.com/MacHomebrew/status/1136249501252038662