Hasklig VS nixpkgs

Hasklig because it includes ligatures useful for programming (although mainly focused on functional programming) & is visually pleasent. https://github.com/i-tu/Hasklig

Its 10000000% the font. I just tested Hasklig's regular font (this) and all of the boxes and question marks dissapear. Theres just one problems with this font. The text is weird af (pics below). It seems to like to smash characters together sometimes and others its cutting parts of them off.

Change to Hasklig font (https://github.com/i-tu/Hasklig)

I like to change it up, but I like Ubuntu Mono and right now I've been using Hasklig

In case anyone is wondering, I use Nord theme and Hasklig font with font ligatures on.

self: super: { hasklig = self.callPackage ({ lib, fetchzip }: let version = "1.2"; in fetchzip { name = "hasklig-${version}"; url = "https://github.com/i-tu/Hasklig/releases/download/v${version}/Hasklig-${version}.zip"; postFetch = '' unzip $downloadedFile install -m444 -Dt $out/share/fonts/opentype OTF/*.otf ''; sha256 = "sha256-8lY1m0P1qQIbR4e7kX68jVoKZmEfPWNwK3AFLoaBEak="; meta = with lib; { homepage = "https://github.com/i-tu/Hasklig"; description = "A font with ligatures for Haskell code based off Source Code Pro"; license = licenses.ofl; platforms = platforms.all; maintainers = with maintainers; [ davidrusu Profpatsch ]; }; }) {}; }

I keep wondering if I should try out a font with ligatures (probably Fira Code or Hasklig), but I haven't yet. Does anyone here use a ligature font with Raku? I'm not sure if the ligatures would fit right in with the Unicode glyphs or get confusing.

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...

True, but irrelevant -- _some packages_, _somewhere_, do depend on xz, which, if built, requires pulling the source from GitHub (see the default.nix: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/nixos-23.11/pkgs/tools...)

It's not the vulnerability that's a problem right now (NixOS was protected by a couple of factors) but rather GitHub's hamfisted response.

That is the problem.