Homebrew 7.0.0

Performance and Architecture

• Many users immediately noticed substantially faster installs and upgrades in 7.0.0; performance work and increased concurrency are called out as the main reasons.
• Homebrew remains primarily Ruby-based; the new GUI is Swift.
• A Rust rewrite was prototyped but abandoned after being slower on realistic benchmarks. Lessons were instead used to optimize the Ruby implementation.

Language / DSL Evolution

• Comparisons are made to Gradle moving away from Groovy. Concern is raised about long‑term reliance on a Ruby DSL as Ruby’s popularity ebbs.
• Core maintainers say contributors need only minimal Ruby, and the DSL has been de‑Turing‑completed: arbitrary post‑install/uninstall Ruby is being replaced by narrower DSLs and a JSON API, with package definitions potentially moving to JSON over time.

Platform Support and Intel Macs

• Dropping macOS 10.15 and moving Intel Macs to Tier 3 (effectively ending support) is the most controversial change.
• Some argue 6–7 years of Intel support is reasonable for a volunteer project, especially with Apple and GitHub sunsetting Intel macOS.
• Others see this as premature obsolescence of “perfectly good” hardware and contrast Homebrew’s policy with MacPorts, which supports very old macOS versions and architectures.
• MacPorts and Linux (with Homebrew or native package managers) are frequently suggested paths for Intel users.

Linux, Prefixes, and Sandboxing

• On Linux, initial setup often still needs root (for the default prefix and sandbox tooling), though a dedicated user is optional.
• 7.0.0 introduces experimental support for arbitrary prefixes under 64 characters; the limit is due to binary path rewriting when pouring bottles.
• Bubblewrap sandboxing is removed in favor of Landlock; kernels without Landlock fall back to pre‑6.0.0‑style, less secure behavior.

Security and Supply Chain

• Homebrew touts stronger sandboxing and a security/advisory system.
• A detailed critique argues Homebrew’s supply‑chain model remains “honor system” and unsuitable for machines with production access, calling for mandatory signing, reproducible builds, and multi‑party verification.
• Others respond that language‑level package managers are similarly risky; Homebrew links its security documentation and invites concrete reports.
• Some users recommend a “cooldown” mechanism or external tooling to delay adopting the newest upstream packages.

New GUI App

• The new native macOS app is welcomed, though:
  • It currently requires newer macOS (Tahoe 26+), which frustrates cautious upgraders.
  • Some see the emoji‑heavy UI as a stylistic misstep.
  • A recurring “failed to decode JSON output” bug is traced to shell integration output corrupting Homebrew’s JSON.

LLM Use in Development

• Maintainers report extensive but reviewed LLM assistance (including a custom “Agent IDE”) for refactors, performance work, sandboxing, and changelog drafting.
• Some users dislike the LLM “tone” of release notes and are uneasy about AI involvement in a system package manager.
• Others defend this workflow, arguing that outputs are thoroughly reviewed and tested, and that overall performance and security are better than ever.

Alternatives and Workflows

• Several users increasingly rely on:
  • Mise for language toolchains and global CLIs (sometimes even to bootstrap Homebrew).
  • uv for Python.
  • Nix, pkgsrc, or MacPorts for development dependencies, with Homebrew mostly reserved for GUI apps via Casks.
• On Linux, Homebrew is popular on immutable/atomic distros and as a way to decouple system packages from user tools.

General Sentiment

• There is broad gratitude for Homebrew’s role as “critical infrastructure” on macOS and Linux.
• Many praise the speed and new features; some feel anxiety around each major upgrade due to dropped platforms and policy changes.
• Intel deprecation, security posture, and OS version requirements are the main sources of discontent; performance, Linux improvements, and the GUI are the main positives.