Installing Node.js explicitly should link it. Installing sth that depends on it should not.

[fulldecent]

tl;dr Homebrew should only put items in PATH directly as a result of running brew install for that named package.

Output of brew config

not relevant

Output of brew doctor

not relevant

Description of issue

The current behavior of brew is that when I install, for example, the svgo package it will put svgo AND node into my $PATH.

This is surprising to me because I requested brew install svgo and I didn't run brew install node.

The fact that svgo depends on node is an implementation detail that I do not care about. And it is not permanent! It is very possible that svgo may replace its node dependency with rust or something in the future. Under the current behavior of brew, this would remove node from my $PATH.

My preferred behavior is that brew install results in only the named package binaries installing to my $PATH. (Homebrew would implement this by skipping the linking step of for dependencies.) This will be more predictable behavior. I recommend that the default will switch to this setting.

Here is a discussion for others interested in exploring this. Here is are use case examples.

---

Use case

1. Brand new computer
2. Install Homebrew
3. brew install svgo
4. node -v

Preferred

Command not found

Actual

node version XXX

---

Second use case

1. Brand new computer
2. Install Homebrew
3. brew install node
4. brew install svgo
5. brew uninstall node

Preferred outcome

[Keep current error, and...]

Note: to remove this package from your path while keeping
it installed for svgo and other brew packages, you can unlink with:
brew unlink node

Actual outcome

Error: Refusing to uninstall /opt/homebrew/Cellar/node/25.8.2
because it is required by svgo, which is currently installed.
You can override this and force removal with:
brew uninstall --ignore-dependencies node

[p-linnane]

node is a runtime dependency of svgo. Homebrew formulae link against their own Homebrew-installed deps, not whatever's on the user's system, and linking is how that resolution works.

[fulldecent]

I don't think that is correct. Here is what I see:

brew install svgo
brew unlink node
node # command not found
svgo # works

And also

❯ head -n1 /opt/homebrew/bin/svgo
#!/opt/homebrew/opt/node/bin/node

---

Maybe I am using the word "linking" wrong. But performing brew unlink produces the expected outcome and does not impact the running of svgo.

[p-linnane]

Fair, svgo's wrapper resolves node via opt paths so it functions without the symlink. Doesn't change the default. brew install <tool> putting deps on PATH is the expected contract.

[fulldecent]

I agree that program default is as you say it is.

The point of this discussion is to argue that the default should be changed to meet the preferred behavior above. I will change "expected behavior" to "preferred behavior" in the top post.

[p-linnane]

Thanks for the clarification, but no. brew install svgo && brew unlink node already gets you there, as you demonstrated above. Homebrew also already tracks the explicit-vs-dependency distinction (see --as-dependency and installed_on_request); not wiring that into link behavior is a deliberate choice, not an oversight. We're not flipping the default.

[SMillerDev]

Why would anyone install something, see that node got installed in the process, and be happy that node --version fails subsequently?

I don't really understand the use case here.

[fulldecent]

The use case is that I intentionally installed svgo. And I don't need to know that it includes node.

One day the svgo package might change from node to rust. Under the current Homebrew default configuration that means node leaves my PATH.

I think that random programs like node entering or leaving my PATH at the whim of dependencies of other packages I installed is surprising behavior.

---

If I wanted node to be in my path I would do brew install node.

---

Therefore this discussion is centered around the idea that brew should only put items in PATH directly as a result of running brew install for that named package.

[fulldecent]

Thank you for this discussion. Your notes have allowed me to better articulate into the top post what this motivation is for this feature request. Would you please say if the top post now clearly explains the answer to your question now?