aws-cli VS homebrew-core

The AWS CLI is a must-have tool if your team relies on Amazon Web Services. It lets you effortlessly interact with AWS services, orchestrate resource management, and automate tasks from the comfort of your terminal. Once you get used to the tool, you'll notice how convenient and quick it is to fit into your processes – especially compared to going through AWS's web-based user interface.

Just for your consideration, the network effect is very real with package managers, too:

https://search.nixos.org/packages?channel=23.05&show=awscli2 is 2.11.27 (even on the "unstable" channel), versus https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/awscli#default that is 2.12.1, which correctly is the most current (https://github.com/aws/aws-cli/tags)

s3fs allows Linux, macOS, and FreeBSD to mount an S3 bucket via FUSE(Filesystem in Userspace). s3fs makes you operate files and directories in S3 bucket like a local file system. s3fs preserves the native object format for files, allowing use of other tools like AWS CLI.

AFAIK it's still a Python package: https://github.com/aws/aws-cli/tree/2.11.6

Check CLI version, it looks like the earliest version that had DEEP_ARCHIVE support was 1.16.133 (https://github.com/aws/aws-cli/commit/55efab102f774ef17bf51ad32e939e4e03a5ff8a)

And this is the init_localstack.sh file content, a unique thing about localstack its that you can move all strings like an aws-cli tool, also the container deletes all the content and config once the container stops, so the script file must create all the resources that you need from Localstack

It can? I created a pull request for this that hasn't been merged yet: https://github.com/aws/aws-cli/pull/6365

$ brew info eza ==> eza: stable 0.18.13 (bottled) Modern, maintained replacement for ls https://github.com/eza-community/eza Not installed From: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/blob/HEAD/Formula/e/eza.rb License: MIT ==> Dependencies Build: pandoc ✘, pkg-config ✔, rust ✘ Required: libgit2 ✘ ==> Analytics install: 12,792 (30 days), 38,295 (90 days), 68,375 (365 days) install-on-request: 12,790 (30 days), 38,293 (90 days), 68,375 (365 days) build-error: 0 (30 days)

Is disabling the compromised repo the typical GitHub policy? My concern is there are monorepos used by package managers, like brew, that are a collection of thousands of projects [1]. These monorepos seem like a prime target for attack and if GitHub disables one because a malicious commit was merged then you've taken down an entire ecosystem.

[1] https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core

> Correct. Though we do not appear to be affected, this revert was done out of an abundance of caution.

[1] https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/167512

> right, but now you know even less about your setup when you some roadblock

This is the same with a binary though. And with homebrew, you can't follow patches or flags used or if they change.

- https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/blob/c964ad7fa53ad...

definitely be careful about using fortune in a corporate environment or public space if you don't know what dat files you are using or you might just get an extremely unwelcome surprise.

I was practicing a presentation and used to use "fortune" all the time. I forget exactly what it output but I remember being absolutely mortified about what could have happened if that had popped up during an internal company tech talk.

Kudos to brew for keeping unsuspecting people safe

https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/commit/3fb3c4c3e55...

I'm sorry to be asking this as I find it a bit silly, but it's blocking my PR [3], so could a few of you star the project on Github [1] to get my PR to run?

[1] https://github.com/laktak/chkbit-py

[2] https://brew.sh

[3] https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/160018