top | item 10310310

(no title)

littlewing | 10 years ago

When I first read this I was a little pissed at Apple, but what if brew were to install everything to /brew? It doesn't need to install into /usr/local.

discuss

order

deong|10 years ago

You'd run into exactly the same problem. Apple doesn't provide /brew in the default image, so something would have to create a new inode in /, and that something presumably requires SIP be disabled (assuming / is protected in SIP at least).

Even if it worked, you'd be no better off than just using ~/.homebrew or something like it. Their whole reason for wanting /usr/local is that (a) /usr/local/bin is in the default $PATH, and (b) it can be written to by a normal user. Using /brew gives up (a) anyway, so you may as well just put it in a user's home directory somewhere.

quesera|10 years ago

> You'd run into exactly the same problem.

I think you misunderstand the problem. /usr/local exists in OSX, and is one of the recommended install locations for user software. But if you change the permissions on /usr/local, OSX will interpret that as damage and fix it. Homebrew does this, which is in conflict with all uses of /usr/local in Unix history.

> and (b) it can be written to by a normal user.

Critically, no. This is a security risk. A larger one back when multiuser systems were the only Unix systems, but still a risk. Violates all standards, even the ones OSX doesn't attempt to comply with.

duskwuff|10 years ago

/ is not protected by SIP.