No. Root is the specific user which should do installations. Thus, the "solution" is for Homebrew to stop pretending that password-less binary installs is a "feature" instead of a massive security hole.
Honestly, Homebrew doesn't seem like a reason to either use or not use a Mac. For me personally, (as I mentioned elsewhere), the small amount of unix-y host (i.e. macOS) software I install is available in native Installer packages. The rest I install in Debian VMs.
For those that need/want more unix-y tools at the host level, there are a lot of positive comments about MacPorts in this thread, and it specifically doesn't have the permissions issue that Homebrew has (it requires being run as sudo, as it drops to a special account for compiling, and then later installs as root)
Honestly, Homebrew doesn't seem like a reason to either use or not use a Mac. For me personally, (as I mentioned elsewhere), the small amount of unix-y host (i.e. macOS) software I install is available in native Installer packages. The rest I install in Debian VMs.
For those that need/want more unix-y tools at the host level, there are a lot of positive comments about MacPorts in this thread, and it specifically doesn't have the permissions issue that Homebrew has (it requires being run as sudo, as it drops to a special account for compiling, and then later installs as root)
Reply-to-Edits:
> Edit: It seems to be fixed anyway? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12892929
No. You still need to change ownership of /usr/local/bin. The problem isn't fixed, at all.
> Edit: Let user "homebrew" have id 0.
No. That would essentially be the same as running `sudo homebrew`, which they don't support.
It would also mean that packages that need to be compiled will do so as root, not a limited user account as they should be.