Hi Carlo, On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Carlo Arenas wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 5:59 AM Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:17 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I'm slightly leery of seeing these applied globally on Mac OS in > > > > config.mak.uname since various package managers on Mac OS install > > > > packages in wildly different locations, and these settings might > > > > cause the wrong version of a package to be picked up if a user has > > > > a preferred version installed elsewhere. > > > > > > As a follow up, although slightly leery of applying this change > > > globally to config.mak.uname, I don't necessarily oppose it either. > > > Considering how widely adopted Homebrew is on Mac OS, baking in a > > > bit of Homebrew-specific knowledge would make it easier for a Git > > > developer to get up and running by eliminating some of the manual > > > fiddling and configuration currently necessary. > > > > I share your concern. But in contrast to Fink and DarwinPorts, we have > > no Homebrew-specific knob in the Makefile (does this mean that we > > expect users to use Homebrew by default?). > > IMHO the reason why there is no NO_BREW flag is because brew decided to That is not an opinion, but an assumption. > use the "default" directory instead of one of their own (which is why it > has so many issues with unlinked files that might or not conflict with > the system, like gettext), this is also why a NO_BREW flag (similar to > the other two introduced since 8eb38cad44 (Disable linking with Fink or > DarwinPorts., 2006-07-24)) wouldn't make sense. > > my assumption is also that most people in macOS use brew nowadays Yes, that is an assumption. One I share, but I would say that it is more a suspicion because I do not really want to act on it. > instead of fink, darwinports or any of the other alternatives, but there > is also people that use none and it is that complication why my proposed > patch was in what would seem like the wrong place to begin with. for > more context in that last point see: 59f8674006 (Move Fink and Ports > check to after config file, 2006-12-12). > > on that last point, I am afraid there is still at least a problem that > needs addressing, but will comment in patch instead for easy of > reference. I would have preferred a straight answer right here than a reference to something I have not received (yet?). Ciao, Dscho
