Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

You should add a homebrew installation script #326

Open
orefalo opened this issue Dec 2, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

You should add a homebrew installation script #326

orefalo opened this issue Dec 2, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@orefalo
Copy link

orefalo commented Dec 2, 2020

No description provided.

@euank
Copy link
Owner

euank commented Dec 7, 2020

Thanks for the issue and PR (#327), @orefalo!

Before going through that PR, I want to talk through if that's the right approach.

From my understanding, in brew there's first-part packages in "homebrew-core", and there's third-party "taps" that can be added.
In order for updates to correctly be handled, I think we need one of those two mechanisms.

In addition, I think a "tap" effectively git clones a repository and finds all formulae within it, which leads me to think that it makes more sense to put the tap in its own separate repository so "brew tap " doesn't have to clone unnecessary stuff (i.e. put it in 'brew tap euank/pazi-brew' or such that's only updated for version bumps).

I think the questions I want to figure out here are:

  1. Should we add this to upstream brew? Will they want this package there?
    This seems like it has better usability (no need to add a separate tap), and seems more discoverable too. It just kinda depends on whether they'll accept it, but if they will, this seems preferable.
  2. Should we split out a separate repo to be a 'tap' for brew?
    This kinda depends on how 'brew tap euank/pazi' would behave if we added a formulae to this. I suspect it would transfer extra data / be slower / potentially confuse brew, so I'm kinda inclined towards a separate repo.
  3. Am I misunderstanding anything in how brew's normally used? Is there another option?

@orefalo
Copy link
Author

orefalo commented Dec 7, 2020

Hi, I am no expert at brew. I built the script from a sample, in the end it's much easier for me to manage my cli customizations like that. tap is a neat option, I didn't look into it.

  1. I tried to submit on homebrew repo a few months ago - they want the formula that runs all the unit tests - that's beyond my scope.
  2. typically, you would fork the homebrew repo and author/maintain the formula from there. I can't speak about tap
  3. Another option, based on z should have an interactive mode #1, is just to add the formula in a subfolder of your main repo, and add instructions to install via brew install http://url. I find the tap to be an extra step that I don't need.

Hope this helps

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants