bazel_rules_qt
nixpkgs
Our great sponsors
bazel_rules_qt | nixpkgs | |
---|---|---|
1 | 973 | |
44 | 15,656 | |
- | 5.3% | |
0.0 | 10.0 | |
about 2 years ago | 1 day ago | |
Starlark | Nix | |
Apache License 2.0 | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
bazel_rules_qt
-
Incremental Builds for Haskell with Bazel
I migrated a mid-size polyglot project from Makefiles to Bazel and C++ was a large component of the project.
Some obstacles:
1. Building with QT5 MOC & UI files. There is a great library[0] for it but it has hardcoded paths to the QT binaries and header files assuming a system-wide installation. I had to patch the rule to point to our QT location. Then it worked fine.
2. There is no rule to build a fully static library[1]. Since we were shipping a static library in our Makefile system, that was somewhat annoying.
3. We were using system links like `$PROJECT_ROOT/links/GCC/vX.Y.Z/ -> /opt/gcc/...` to point to all the build tools, but these didn't work in Bazel I think because it required absolute paths for any binaries it calls. We ended up putting them in a .bazelrc but we would need a different one for Windows and Linux.
4. Not good integration with IDEs
Ultimately we did not keep using Bazel because we were building Python binaries and py_binary was too slow on Windows. And we didn't have enough time to write a PyInstaller rule.
[0]: https://github.com/justbuchanan/bazel_rules_qt
[1]: https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/1920
nixpkgs
-
Air Force picks Anduril, General Atomics to develop unmanned fighter jets
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=neon-sunset
-
Eelco Dolstra's leadership is corrosive to the Nix project
I see two signers in the top 6 displayed on https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/graphs/contributors
-
3rd Edition of Programming: Principles and Practice Using C++ by Stroustrup
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,
```
- NixOS/nixpkgs: There isn't a clear canonical way to refer to a specific package
-
NixOS Is Not Reproducible
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...
-
The xz attack shell script
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...
-
Debian Git Monorepo
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
-
From xz to ibus: more questionable tarballs
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...
-
GitHub Disabled the Xz Repo
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.
-
Combining Nix with Terraform for better DevOps
We’ve noticed that some users have been asking about how to use older versions of Terraform in their Nix setups [1, 2]. This is an example of the diverse needs of people and the importance of maintaining backward compatibility. We hope that nixpkgs-terraform will be a useful tool for these users.
What are some alternatives?
toolchains_llvm - LLVM toolchain for bazel
asdf - Extendable version manager with support for Ruby, Node.js, Elixir, Erlang & more
gcc-toolchain - A fully-hermetic Bazel GCC toolchain for Linux.
Home Manager using Nix - Manage a user environment using Nix [maintainer=@rycee]
llvm-project - The LLVM Project is a collection of modular and reusable compiler and toolchain technologies.
git-lfs - Git extension for versioning large files
rules_python - Bazel Python Rules
easyeffects - Limiter, compressor, convolver, equalizer and auto volume and many other plugins for PipeWire applications
spack - A flexible package manager that supports multiple versions, configurations, platforms, and compilers.
waydroid - Waydroid uses a container-based approach to boot a full Android system on a regular GNU/Linux system like Ubuntu.
nixos - My NixOS Configurations
youtube-dl-gui - A cross-platform GUI for youtube-dl made in Electron and node.js