.dots VS nixpkgs

I have a wrapper function that just maps to dev to make life easier: https://github.com/dmadisetti/.dots/blob/template/dot/config/fish/functions/develop.fish

Never fully got it to work, so I just encrypt my secrets when I build my isos: https://github.com/dmadisetti/.dots/actions/runs/5055636638/jobs/9072093945

I have multiple files for each machine based on hostname. I have CI strip my config of all system specific information for general distribution. For reference: https://github.com/dmadisetti/.dots

I build a wsl image: https://github.com/dmadisetti/.dots/blob/template/nix/machines/wsl.nix

What I do: Keep secrets in a separate git repo as a flake, and have a stub flake, that can be overridden: https://github.com/dmadisetti/.dots/tree/template/nix/spoof

My dots

I have a script that will symlink my dotfiles in (github:dmadisetti/.dots/setup.sh), because you also end up with weird RO permissions if you do it through Nix. I think this is fine. It also means that you aren't stuck with Nix

The way I manage multiple systems is with a wrapper: https://github.com/dmadisetti/.dots/blob/template/dot/config/fish/functions/snix.fish

The only thing that is semi manual is setting up disks on first install (something you'd still have to do with arch). You can still script that: https://github.com/dmadisetti/.dots/blob/template/scripts/run-install.nix.sh

I don't think so. The article is probably intended for the Nix community, so the author doesn't need to convince HN that something is going on. If as an outsider you are interested then you need to look into it yourself, the community has no obligation to make their internal conflicts legible to the outside world.

As an outsider myself, it certainly looks like something is going on as more than 20 Nixpkg maintainers left in a week: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=label%3A%228.has%3...

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=neon-sunset

I see two signers in the top 6 displayed on https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/graphs/contributors

For a single file script, nix can make the package management quite easy: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/doc/languages-f...

For example,

```

Yes, Nix doesn't actually ensure that the builds are deterministic. In fact it works just fine if they aren't. There are packages in nixpkgs that aren't reproducible: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aiss...

I'm not familiar with Bazel, but Nix in it's current form wouldn't have solved this attack. First of all, the standard mkDerivation function calls the same configure; make; make install process that made this attack possible. Nixpkgs regularly pulls in external resources (fetchUrl and friends) that are equally vulnerable to a poisoned release tarball. Checkout the comment on the current xz entry in nixpkgs https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/tools/comp...

NixOS uses a monorepo and I think everyone's love it.

I love being able to easily grep through all the packages source code and there's regularly PRs that harmonizes conventions across many packages.

Nixpkgs doesn't include the packaged software source code, so it's a lot more practical than what Debian is doing.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs

In this specific case, nix uses fetchFromGitHub to download the source archive, which are generated by GitHub for the specified revision[1]. Arch seems to just download the tarball from the releases page[2].

[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/3c2fdd0a4e6396fc310a6e...

[2]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/ib...