7 ms·

Upgrading to Lion is a great time to make the switch to Homebrew: http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/ http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/

by nathos 15y ago

kaffeinecoma 15y ago
Giving this a try now. While I'm waiting for XCode to download, can anyone comment on the best way to get Apache httpd running on OSX? Is there a Homebrew package for this? I use Apache to front Tomcat on a linux server, but it would be really handy to be able to test stuff locally on my Mac before copying changes up to the server.
- selvakn 15y ago
  Im not sure about Lion, but OSX comes with built in apache server. Goto System Preferences > Sharing > Web Sharing
  - tvon 15y ago
    Indeed, Apache is included.
  - kaffeinecoma 15y ago
    Ah, I knew that Web Sharing used Apache, but I didn't realize that it was packaged in such a way as to be usable for stuff beyond Web Sharing. The conf files seem to live in /etc.apache2. Thanks for that.
philfreo 15y ago
Benefits over MacPorts? Which has more up-to-date packages?
- kylewpppd 15y ago
  I'd go for sheer package numbers, and also MacPorts traditionally has had much better support for Python packages, and the rudimentary python_select. Macports says they have 8199 packages. Brew has 1626 by my unscientific count (hint: $('table.tree-browser tr').length ). A major difference is in how packages are installed. Brew by default will use native OS X packages. Macports installs all dependencies to /opt/local. So a trivial install for Brew could lead to a long install in Macports. I've had Macports build GCC. But this new version is supposed to allow for pre-compiled binaries. So maybe a lot of that beef will disappear?
- stock_toaster 15y ago
  I made the switch to homebrew fairly recently (within the last two months). Things I like: * I install everything to ~/.brew/ and it works great. I did _not_ like their documented recommendation to install everything to /usr/local and chown it as your user. I have yet to run into any issues installing to my home dir. * Installs of things have fewer deps, or at least perceived, compared to macports. Nice to not have a separate copy of everything. I haven't run into issues (yet!) where an OS update makes something puke, so this could be a problem down the road, but so far so good. * Upgrades are very simple: brew update / brew upgrade * Toolset is easy to work with. * timely updates
- llimllib 15y ago
  1) Brew doesn't hide my stuff in /opt/macports/opt/package/ports/port/python/etc/etc/etc 2) Brew packages are simple to make and inspect. Many people make and inspect them. Bug fixes happen quickly.
  - heresy 15y ago
    Agreed with (2). I actively create patches and submit it to them whenever I run into a problem, and I will keep doing so, because it's typically only a few days until it gets merged. How I got into it, was the nifty searching of Github issues that Homebrew does for existing issues when you have a compilation error. One way to get people to report bugs is to show them you care..
- kkowalczyk 15y ago
  Maybe things have changed but I switched from MacPorts to homebrew in the early days of homebrew (2009?) because it was way easier to install. MacPort's package installer tools mystified me. Homebrew could be improved too, but is better. Finally, homebrew seems more open to contributions and because they use GitHub, it's very easy to contribute new packages and the high level of activity on Homebrew reflects that. I briefly looked at what it would take to contribute to MacPorts and it was harder.
- acangiano 15y ago
  Brew doesn't install the whole universe and take hours to install a small utility. MacPorts does.
  - singular 15y ago
    Does brew compile from source? That is one of the most frustrating aspects of macports, for example I was trying to install a simple musical ear training tool the other day and it went to compile GCC. Argh!
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - jacknagel 15y ago
      Yes, in most cases, but most packages have minimal dependencies due to Homebrew's "use what OS X provides" philosophy, i.e., the XCode toolchain (Homebrew doesn't even have a package for GCC).
    - ubernostrum 15y ago
      The thing with MacPorts is, basically, you're installing a parallel universe that doesn't know about the software your system already had. So it has to bootstrap completely from scratch, including its own toolchain, basic libraries, etc. Once you get all that, it goes faster, but the first time you go to install something simple you're basically going to walk away for a couple hours while it sets up its own little world.
  - mikemaccana 15y ago
    > Brew doesn't install the whole universe and take hours to install a small utility. MacPorts does. Confirming that - my new MacPorts 2 install installed perl and ncurses just to get ipython.
    - mikemaccana 15y ago
      And, even worse, xorg and xdmcp to get py25-pil.
- micampe 15y ago
  The benefit is that Homebrew uses what you already have in the system, without creating its own separate world where it rebuilds everything even if a perfectly working version is already provided.
  - saurik 15y ago
    MacPorts used to do this, and then stopped because the copy on the system sometimes wasn't "a perfectly working version" and by virtue of being tied to an entire OS update caused giant incompatibilities (as you had to deal with, simultaneously, broken old versions and broken new versions existing in the ecosystem).
    - micampe 15y ago
      Well, either those are corner cases or the Homebrew guys are doing a great job because I've never had a problem. Not a heavy user though. Before Homebrew I used to build my own packages because I tried and couldn't stand Fink or MacPorts.
      - saurik 15y ago
        I think Homebrew has been around for about two years now; it came out during the Mac OS 10.5 era. That means that only last week has it even gone through a second major release of the OS. MacPorts, formally DarwinPorts, has been around for nine years, and has been post-1.0 for the last six. I am pretty certain that it came out during the Mac OS 10.1 era, and at the time supported down to 10.0. Given this stark contrast, to compare the compatibility complexity experience of MacPorts to Homebrew with the statement "I've never had a problem" is nothing less than hubris. Seriously, the history of every package management system (including such stalwarts as RPM, APT, MacPorts, and even rubygems) is the same: they start off with the attitude "why is this so complex" and then get to find out over the next decade exactly why those things are so complex. Honestly: why does it matter oh so very much to everyone that you have to rebuild a few more packages? Isn't this just a problem of not having binary packages? If so, rather than sit around and build Homebrew, someone should have just contributed some bandwidth back to Fink.
- riobard 15y ago
  Homebrew tries to reuse system packages as much as possible. MacPorts comes with its own everything. Homebrew tends to have fresher packages---new versions of popular packages are usually updated within hours. Haven't look back to MacPorts since switched to Homebrew two years ago.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mrcharles 15y ago
I am intrigued by the overwhelming support for Homebrew here -- is there a web resource for package lists so I can see if it will work for me? I haven't been able to google one up. I don't use macports a lot, I think the biggest things I have installed are Python 2.7, PIL, and Hg.
- daviddavis 15y ago
  Homebrew is just a Ruby project in git so all the packages (or formulas) are just rb files inside the project: https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/tree/master/Library/Formula https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/tree/master/Library/Formula They usually only provide the most recent stable version of each project but you can find other formulas on the web and just run: brew install [url]

Upgrading to Lion is a great time to make the switch to Homebrew: http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/ http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/

by nathos 15y ago

Upgrading to Lion is a great time to make the switch to Homebrew: http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/ http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/

kaffeinecoma 15y ago

Giving this a try now. While I'm waiting for XCode to download, can anyone comment on the best way to get Apache httpd running on OSX? Is there a Homebrew package for this? I use Apache to front Tomcat on a linux server, but it would be really handy to be able to test stuff locally on my Mac before copying changes up to the server.

selvakn 15y ago
Im not sure about Lion, but OSX comes with built in apache server. Goto System Preferences > Sharing > Web Sharing
- tvon 15y ago
  Indeed, Apache is included.
- kaffeinecoma 15y ago
  Ah, I knew that Web Sharing used Apache, but I didn't realize that it was packaged in such a way as to be usable for stuff beyond Web Sharing. The conf files seem to live in /etc.apache2. Thanks for that.

philfreo 15y ago

Benefits over MacPorts? Which has more up-to-date packages?

kylewpppd 15y ago
I'd go for sheer package numbers, and also MacPorts traditionally has had much better support for Python packages, and the rudimentary python_select. Macports says they have 8199 packages. Brew has 1626 by my unscientific count (hint: $('table.tree-browser tr').length ). A major difference is in how packages are installed. Brew by default will use native OS X packages. Macports installs all dependencies to /opt/local. So a trivial install for Brew could lead to a long install in Macports. I've had Macports build GCC. But this new version is supposed to allow for pre-compiled binaries. So maybe a lot of that beef will disappear?
stock_toaster 15y ago
I made the switch to homebrew fairly recently (within the last two months). Things I like: * I install everything to ~/.brew/ and it works great. I did _not_ like their documented recommendation to install everything to /usr/local and chown it as your user. I have yet to run into any issues installing to my home dir. * Installs of things have fewer deps, or at least perceived, compared to macports. Nice to not have a separate copy of everything. I haven't run into issues (yet!) where an OS update makes something puke, so this could be a problem down the road, but so far so good. * Upgrades are very simple: brew update / brew upgrade * Toolset is easy to work with. * timely updates
llimllib 15y ago
1) Brew doesn't hide my stuff in /opt/macports/opt/package/ports/port/python/etc/etc/etc 2) Brew packages are simple to make and inspect. Many people make and inspect them. Bug fixes happen quickly.
- heresy 15y ago
  Agreed with (2). I actively create patches and submit it to them whenever I run into a problem, and I will keep doing so, because it's typically only a few days until it gets merged. How I got into it, was the nifty searching of Github issues that Homebrew does for existing issues when you have a compilation error. One way to get people to report bugs is to show them you care..
kkowalczyk 15y ago
Maybe things have changed but I switched from MacPorts to homebrew in the early days of homebrew (2009?) because it was way easier to install. MacPort's package installer tools mystified me. Homebrew could be improved too, but is better. Finally, homebrew seems more open to contributions and because they use GitHub, it's very easy to contribute new packages and the high level of activity on Homebrew reflects that. I briefly looked at what it would take to contribute to MacPorts and it was harder.
acangiano 15y ago
Brew doesn't install the whole universe and take hours to install a small utility. MacPorts does.
- singular 15y ago
  Does brew compile from source? That is one of the most frustrating aspects of macports, for example I was trying to install a simple musical ear training tool the other day and it went to compile GCC. Argh!
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacknagel 15y ago
    Yes, in most cases, but most packages have minimal dependencies due to Homebrew's "use what OS X provides" philosophy, i.e., the XCode toolchain (Homebrew doesn't even have a package for GCC).
  - ubernostrum 15y ago
    The thing with MacPorts is, basically, you're installing a parallel universe that doesn't know about the software your system already had. So it has to bootstrap completely from scratch, including its own toolchain, basic libraries, etc. Once you get all that, it goes faster, but the first time you go to install something simple you're basically going to walk away for a couple hours while it sets up its own little world.
- mikemaccana 15y ago
  > Brew doesn't install the whole universe and take hours to install a small utility. MacPorts does. Confirming that - my new MacPorts 2 install installed perl and ncurses just to get ipython.
  - mikemaccana 15y ago
    And, even worse, xorg and xdmcp to get py25-pil.
micampe 15y ago
The benefit is that Homebrew uses what you already have in the system, without creating its own separate world where it rebuilds everything even if a perfectly working version is already provided.
- saurik 15y ago
  MacPorts used to do this, and then stopped because the copy on the system sometimes wasn't "a perfectly working version" and by virtue of being tied to an entire OS update caused giant incompatibilities (as you had to deal with, simultaneously, broken old versions and broken new versions existing in the ecosystem).
  - micampe 15y ago
    Well, either those are corner cases or the Homebrew guys are doing a great job because I've never had a problem. Not a heavy user though. Before Homebrew I used to build my own packages because I tried and couldn't stand Fink or MacPorts.
    - saurik 15y ago
      I think Homebrew has been around for about two years now; it came out during the Mac OS 10.5 era. That means that only last week has it even gone through a second major release of the OS. MacPorts, formally DarwinPorts, has been around for nine years, and has been post-1.0 for the last six. I am pretty certain that it came out during the Mac OS 10.1 era, and at the time supported down to 10.0. Given this stark contrast, to compare the compatibility complexity experience of MacPorts to Homebrew with the statement "I've never had a problem" is nothing less than hubris. Seriously, the history of every package management system (including such stalwarts as RPM, APT, MacPorts, and even rubygems) is the same: they start off with the attitude "why is this so complex" and then get to find out over the next decade exactly why those things are so complex. Honestly: why does it matter oh so very much to everyone that you have to rebuild a few more packages? Isn't this just a problem of not having binary packages? If so, rather than sit around and build Homebrew, someone should have just contributed some bandwidth back to Fink.
riobard 15y ago
Homebrew tries to reuse system packages as much as possible. MacPorts comes with its own everything. Homebrew tends to have fresher packages---new versions of popular packages are usually updated within hours. Haven't look back to MacPorts since switched to Homebrew two years ago.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mrcharles 15y ago

I am intrigued by the overwhelming support for Homebrew here -- is there a web resource for package lists so I can see if it will work for me? I haven't been able to google one up. I don't use macports a lot, I think the biggest things I have installed are Python 2.7, PIL, and Hg.

daviddavis 15y ago
Homebrew is just a Ruby project in git so all the packages (or formulas) are just rb files inside the project: https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/tree/master/Library/Formula https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/tree/master/Library/Formula They usually only provide the most recent stable version of each project but you can find other formulas on the web and just run: brew install [url]