Repository navigation
[FEATURE]: Install.sh should prefer homebrew on Mac, when available. #377
Description
Activity
- added a parent issue
on Jul 16, 2026 I don't think this is a good change. The installer going through brew is likely very unexpected. If I wanted to install with brew then I would call brew directly myself.
I think we should revert this commit e52e88a
And instead update the documentation to include how to install through brew directly.
I don't think this is a good change. The installer going through brew is likely very unexpected. If I wanted to install with brew then I would call brew directly myself.
I think we should revert this commit e52e88a
And instead update the documentation to include how to install through brew directly.
I don't think we violate the principle of least surprise here, and there's a lot of advantages to wrapping the native package manager, such as automatic updates going forward. I'm also wanting to expand this pattern to wrap
dnfandapt-getwhen we've got RPM / DEB support.There's a lot of existing implementations that support the pattern in this PR:
- Netdata's
kickstart.sh - Datadog agent installer script wraps
dnfandapt-get - Docker
- K3S
- Gitlab Runners
- Chef Workstation tools
- Laravel Herd
- Netdata's
Okay, I don't disagree on any of those points. It still feels odd to me, but I haven't used many installers up to now apparently.
Okay, I don't disagree on any of those points. It still feels odd to me, but I haven't used many installers up to now apparently.
@jakedipity I might see some friction here now that you bring it to my attention and I think about it. The main advantage of a install.sh is that it should require minimal for a sane installation. Install.sh on rustup, stack, oh-my-zsh, etc don't expect that you have an optional package manager installed. Brew is popular but not default and not even the only package manager used by devs on mac. As @charlesjohnson mentions above dnf/apt-get are more defendable as they are defaults for those ecosystems.
@jakedipity I might see some friction here now that you bring it to my attention and I think about it. The main advantage of a install.sh is that it should require minimal for a sane installation. Install.sh on rustup, stack, oh-my-zsh, etc don't expect that you have an optional package manager installed. Brew is popular but not default and not even the only package manager used by devs on mac. As @charlesjohnson mentions above dnf/apt-get are more defendable as they are defaults for those ecosystems.
We use brew if available, but don't take a dependency. It just downloads the binary as before if Brew isn't present.
Summary
When the install.sh script is called on a Mac that has homebred available, the installer should prefer the homebrew installer over a direct binary download.
Additional Context
No response
Upload screenshots
No response
Searched Issues
Code of Conduct