>the best way to install these tools is to build it yourself, i.e. make install, etc.
And you're fully auditing the source code before you run make, right? I don't know anyone who does, but you're handing over just as much control as with curl|bash from the developer's site, or brew install, you're just adding more steps...
> And you're fully auditing the source code before you run make.
I mean you can?
But that is the whole point when the source is available, it is easier to audit, rather than binaries.
Even with brew, the brew maintainers have already audited the code, and it the source to install and even install using --HEAD is hosted on brew's CDN.
>Even with brew, the brew maintainers have already audited the code
Realistically, how much are they auditing? I absolutely agree with your sentiment that it's better than a binary, but I think the whole security model we have is far too trusting because of the historically overwhelming number of good-faith actors in our area both in industry and hobbyists