3 ms·

Why do you have to use brew - there are other package managers for macOS new ones like nixpkgs and ones much older than brew like Macports and Fink. All of thes

Why do you have to use brew - there are other package managers for macOS new ones like nixpkgs and ones much older than brew like Macports and Fink. All of these follow normal Unix standards e.g. like work on a multi user system.

mikelevins 4y ago
You don't absolutely have to use brew, but there's a sort of relentless soft pressure to use it because it's more or less the de facto standard package manager for macOS and has such a large collection of packages. I rather dislike it, and I periodically purge it from my system. So far I've always ended up reluctantly adding it back because I was trying out some tool or other that was dramatically more of a pain to install without brew. I can get by for a long time without it, but then I want to try out something that assumes brew, or whose dependencies assume brew, and it winds up back on my system again until I get vexed enough to remove it again.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > it's more or less the de facto standard package manager for macOS and has such a large collection of packages I definitely see the social pressure. That said, I’ve never needed to use it because I needed a package that was not on Macports. So far for my use no difference in the number of packages in the default repositories has been meaningful.
  - mikelevins 4y ago
    The thing that always makes me cave and install brew is I want to try some tool and its default install assumes brew. Now, I'll bet in close to 100% of cases I could get things to work with stuff from MacPorts instead, but I've accumulated thirty years worth of scars that incline me to want to stick as closely as possible to the defaults when trying something new. So I end up going back to brew, even though I don't much like it.
emptysongglass 4y ago
Because Homebrew is unfortunately "the standard" and the first place a project will package for if availability for macOS is desired. As a Linux user, it's the worst package manager I've ever experienced but it is what everyone is using in my company who uses macOS (most people).
- catiopatio 4y ago
  MacPorts is actively supported, with broad package support — and of course, pull requests for new packages are welcome. v2.8 was just released on October 20th; changelog here: https://github.com/macports/macports-base/blob/v2.8.0/ChangeLog https://github.com/macports/macports-base/blob/v2.8.0/Change...
  - dottedmag 4y ago
    "pull requests for new packages are welcome" is the self-defeating answer: if you as a user have to create a PR for a package to be in MacPorts then it means that MacPorts have not attracted enough attention from the authors of the package to submit it themselves.
    - pasc1878 4y ago
      Very few package authors create packages in any packaging system. The ports are usually done by someone else often part of the package team. e.g. who crates emacs or vim packages for debian nix etc?
      - dottedmag 4y ago
        It would be funny if the state of packaging on Linux would not be so pathetic. If authors care about Windows they do produce Windows installers and/or publish it in their store. If authors care about macOS, they produce .dmg or publish the app via Mac Store. Additionally they often publish it on Homebrew. If authors care about Linux, they provide packages for Ubuntu and Fedora, and sometimes for more distros from the long tail (usually Debian comes 3rd as it is simple to add after Ubuntu).

mikelevins 4y ago

You don't absolutely have to use brew, but there's a sort of relentless soft pressure to use it because it's more or less the de facto standard package manager for macOS and has such a large collection of packages. I rather dislike it, and I periodically purge it from my system. So far I've always ended up reluctantly adding it back because I was trying out some tool or other that was dramatically more of a pain to install without brew. I can get by for a long time without it, but then I want to try out something that assumes brew, or whose dependencies assume brew, and it winds up back on my system again until I get vexed enough to remove it again.

kergonath 4y ago
> it's more or less the de facto standard package manager for macOS and has such a large collection of packages I definitely see the social pressure. That said, I’ve never needed to use it because I needed a package that was not on Macports. So far for my use no difference in the number of packages in the default repositories has been meaningful.
- mikelevins 4y ago
  The thing that always makes me cave and install brew is I want to try some tool and its default install assumes brew. Now, I'll bet in close to 100% of cases I could get things to work with stuff from MacPorts instead, but I've accumulated thirty years worth of scars that incline me to want to stick as closely as possible to the defaults when trying something new. So I end up going back to brew, even though I don't much like it.

emptysongglass 4y ago

Because Homebrew is unfortunately "the standard" and the first place a project will package for if availability for macOS is desired. As a Linux user, it's the worst package manager I've ever experienced but it is what everyone is using in my company who uses macOS (most people).

catiopatio 4y ago
MacPorts is actively supported, with broad package support — and of course, pull requests for new packages are welcome. v2.8 was just released on October 20th; changelog here: https://github.com/macports/macports-base/blob/v2.8.0/ChangeLog https://github.com/macports/macports-base/blob/v2.8.0/Change...
- dottedmag 4y ago
  "pull requests for new packages are welcome" is the self-defeating answer: if you as a user have to create a PR for a package to be in MacPorts then it means that MacPorts have not attracted enough attention from the authors of the package to submit it themselves.
  - pasc1878 4y ago
    Very few package authors create packages in any packaging system. The ports are usually done by someone else often part of the package team. e.g. who crates emacs or vim packages for debian nix etc?
    - dottedmag 4y ago
      It would be funny if the state of packaging on Linux would not be so pathetic. If authors care about Windows they do produce Windows installers and/or publish it in their store. If authors care about macOS, they produce .dmg or publish the app via Mac Store. Additionally they often publish it on Homebrew. If authors care about Linux, they provide packages for Ubuntu and Fedora, and sometimes for more distros from the long tail (usually Debian comes 3rd as it is simple to add after Ubuntu).