Make "brew cask info" print out sudo requirement

[radeksimko]

There's a bunch of casks that require sudo permission, but installing all casks with sudo is not the best solution, which is why we should IMO start tracking which casks have this requirement and allow users & external tools to use this fact accordingly.

Related: boxen/puppet-brewcask#22 (comment) and #5667

How do we identify these casks?

I think there might be certain installation types which may be automatically considered as problematic (pkg) + there will be some that we'll have to mark explicitely, e.g. *.app which will only work from /Applications/.

In what format should we print this fact?

I'd can imagine that there are 2 use-cases:
a) user form CLI
b) scripts and external tools

which is why I suggest something like this:

$ brew cask info google-chrome
google-chrome: latest
google-chrome
https://www.google.com/chrome/
/opt/homebrew-cask/Caskroom/google-chrome/latest (385 files, 359M)
https://github.com/caskroom/homebrew-cask/blob/master/Casks/google-chrome.rb
==> Installation requires su privilege
yes
==> Contents
  Google Chrome.app (app)

$ brew cask info google-chrome --requires-su
1

The naming would be subject to discussion as su may stand for super user or switch user, so maybe admin privilege as super user might be too long?

[phinze]

👍 I think we'll catch >80% of the cases in question by just doing this for pkg casks (since they always require sudo).

Rather than special casing --requires-su I think might be better to just add --machine-readable output for brew cask info ... looking into this now...

[radeksimko]

Rather than special casing --requires-su I think might be better to just add --machine-readable output for brew cask info ... looking into this now...

Good point, I agree.

[salimane]

👍

[alebcay]

The naming would be subject to discussion as su may stand for super user or switch user, so maybe admin privilege as super user might be too long?

The output in brew cask doctor reads:

==> Running As Privileged User:
No

Thus, it may be best to stick with consistent terminology - so perhaps "Installation requires privileged user" or something along those lines.

[vitorgalvao]

Not problematic enough and not enough interest in implementing this, so closing as part of issues cleanup.