centos-stream VS nixpkgs

In an unexpected and surprising move, contrary to what Red Hat has been saying lately to the community about CentOS Stream collaboration and rebuilders, Red Hat will refuse patches to CVE issues, developed by downstream contributors, in CentOS Stream citing "no customer demand".

Link to CentOS Stream Gitlab of the AlmaLinux CVE patch commit: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/iperf3/-/merge_requests/5

Discussion going on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AlmaLinux/comments/1544w8b/red_hat_refuses_almas_cve_patches_to_centos/

The source RHEL is built from can be found here with absolutely no restrictions: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream

https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/src/kernel/centos-st...

Fedora and many other distros do a lot of valued work, too.

FWICS there are FIPS kernel variants for Ubuntu <= 20.04 LTS (2020) but not 22.04 LTS (2022), and Debian and Ubuntu don't have the selinux policy set that Fedora and RHEL+EPEL have. https://ubuntu.com/kernel

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36480033 :

> Would it be feasible to sed-replace the RHEL and/or Fedora selinux and container-selinux rulesets for use with other Linux distros?

> "AFAIU only SUSE can run both AppArmor and SELinux?*

> And browsers are running as unconfined in selinux with like all major distros; even on ChromiumOS

Act like you added `systemd-nspawn respawn` to every SysV-init script and correctly formatted the epoch time in the correct column of each of the log files to merge and then logship again.

There is nothing stopping any of the rebuilders from using gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream to continue rebuilding.

Is "284.18 1" the commit that gets you the kernel version 5.14.0-284.18.1 ?

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...