aws-cli VS nixpkgs

The AWS CLI is a must-have tool if your team relies on Amazon Web Services. It lets you effortlessly interact with AWS services, orchestrate resource management, and automate tasks from the comfort of your terminal. Once you get used to the tool, you'll notice how convenient and quick it is to fit into your processes – especially compared to going through AWS's web-based user interface.

Just for your consideration, the network effect is very real with package managers, too:

https://search.nixos.org/packages?channel=23.05&show=awscli2 is 2.11.27 (even on the "unstable" channel), versus https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/awscli#default that is 2.12.1, which correctly is the most current (https://github.com/aws/aws-cli/tags)

s3fs allows Linux, macOS, and FreeBSD to mount an S3 bucket via FUSE(Filesystem in Userspace). s3fs makes you operate files and directories in S3 bucket like a local file system. s3fs preserves the native object format for files, allowing use of other tools like AWS CLI.

AFAIK it's still a Python package: https://github.com/aws/aws-cli/tree/2.11.6

Check CLI version, it looks like the earliest version that had DEEP_ARCHIVE support was 1.16.133 (https://github.com/aws/aws-cli/commit/55efab102f774ef17bf51ad32e939e4e03a5ff8a)

And this is the init_localstack.sh file content, a unique thing about localstack its that you can move all strings like an aws-cli tool, also the container deletes all the content and config once the container stops, so the script file must create all the resources that you need from Localstack

It can? I created a pull request for this that hasn't been merged yet: https://github.com/aws/aws-cli/pull/6365

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...