4 ms·

Honest question. Homebrew is the missing package manager for OS X. Linux has package managers, so why a fork? Packages just available through homebrew?

by zz1 12y ago

untitaker_ 12y ago
I personally have always hoped for a unified package manager across distros.
- justincormack 12y ago
  Not very likely that they adopt one, but pkgsrc works across OSX, Linux, the BSDs, Solaris and more.
totalrobe 12y ago
This is from the features page: Features Can install software to a home directory and so does not require sudo Install software not packaged by the native distribution Install up-to-date versions of software when the native distribution is old Use the same package manager to manage both your Mac and Linux machines
ics 12y ago
I can think of several possibilities (not exclusive): - Mac users switching to or using linux, so no familiarity with other package managers to lead them elsewhere. - Packages are easy to create with their ruby DSL; it might appear gimmicky but it's very easy to pick up despite possibly being less robust? The command `brew create <tar file url>` even creates a template for you. - CLI is super easy to use; `brew info <package>` tells you everything you need to know; not a significant advantage for anyone willing to read a man page. - Existing packages as you said, plus it's still a hip package manager so... following contributions is easy? (Again, not a significant advantage except maybe for beginners.) Most likely: the people who are already familiar with it want to use it elsewhere (their VMs, dual-boot setup, servers, ...). Edit: Plus whatever is "unique" to brew / what totalrobe listed.
superuser2 12y ago
Homebrew (mostly?) uses glue code around installing dependencies and doing the ./configure && make && make install dance with sane settings for your environment. It's one-liner, low-hassle installation from source. You're not relying on anyone to be timely/trustworthy about packaging binaries for you.
thom_nic 12y ago
Honestly I thought the most apparent (to me) advantage to Homebrew over deb/apt/yum is that it's Git based, so incredibly easy to contribute to. I've never contributed an apt package but I have created a number of homebrew packages for different projects it's incredibly easy. That said, I don't think yet another package manager is necessarily the right solution unless linuxbrew can find dependencies installed by apt/yum so it's not a "one or the other" scenario.

Honest question. Homebrew is the missing package manager for OS X. Linux has package managers, so why a fork? Packages just available through homebrew?

by zz1 12y ago

Honest question. Homebrew is the missing package manager for OS X. Linux has package managers, so why a fork? Packages just available through homebrew?

untitaker_ 12y ago

I personally have always hoped for a unified package manager across distros.

justincormack 12y ago
Not very likely that they adopt one, but pkgsrc works across OSX, Linux, the BSDs, Solaris and more.

totalrobe 12y ago

This is from the features page: Features Can install software to a home directory and so does not require sudo Install software not packaged by the native distribution Install up-to-date versions of software when the native distribution is old Use the same package manager to manage both your Mac and Linux machines

ics 12y ago

I can think of several possibilities (not exclusive): - Mac users switching to or using linux, so no familiarity with other package managers to lead them elsewhere. - Packages are easy to create with their ruby DSL; it might appear gimmicky but it's very easy to pick up despite possibly being less robust? The command `brew create <tar file url>` even creates a template for you. - CLI is super easy to use; `brew info <package>` tells you everything you need to know; not a significant advantage for anyone willing to read a man page. - Existing packages as you said, plus it's still a hip package manager so... following contributions is easy? (Again, not a significant advantage except maybe for beginners.) Most likely: the people who are already familiar with it want to use it elsewhere (their VMs, dual-boot setup, servers, ...). Edit: Plus whatever is "unique" to brew / what totalrobe listed.

superuser2 12y ago

Homebrew (mostly?) uses glue code around installing dependencies and doing the ./configure && make && make install dance with sane settings for your environment. It's one-liner, low-hassle installation from source. You're not relying on anyone to be timely/trustworthy about packaging binaries for you.

thom_nic 12y ago

Honestly I thought the most apparent (to me) advantage to Homebrew over deb/apt/yum is that it's Git based, so incredibly easy to contribute to. I've never contributed an apt package but I have created a number of homebrew packages for different projects it's incredibly easy. That said, I don't think yet another package manager is necessarily the right solution unless linuxbrew can find dependencies installed by apt/yum so it's not a "one or the other" scenario.