chocolatey-packages VS nixpkgs

There are a couple on the Chocolatey Community Chocolatey Packages repository, but I'm not sure which ones off the top of my head.

For https://github.com/chocolatey-community/chocolatey-packages/issues/2232 the issue is not that python 3.11 is not available but that earlier versions with security patches for recent a CVEs are not. So the latest version of 3.9 from the chocolately community repo at the time of writing is 3.9.13. 3.9.16 has the fix.

(pending) chocolatey-community/chocolatey-packages #2226 (kubescape) Add Kubescape package

Remember when the VirtualBox license still allowed commercial use, as long as you installed it yourself manually? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

For a great example of community involvement, see the Chocolatey Community Chocolatey Packages repository which has 340 packages and 617M downloads of those packages.

Meh...

Here is the exact case you mention, just WAY worst. This is something I did for chocolatey community:

https://gist.github.com/choco-bot/a14b1e5bfaf70839b338eb1ab7...

This page checks ~250 web sites for updates on various software. Today it has 6 errors and usually never much more. On my own location I keep ~60 packages and I get errors I tackle errors maybe once a year.

Check out the settings which make it so robust:

https://github.com/chocolatey-community/chocolatey-packages/...

This is not the right place to ask about package updates. If there is an issue with the freecad package, I would suggest that you raise an issue here: https://github.com/chocolatey-community/chocolatey-coreteampackages/issues

FWIW I got it working on Windows 10 19041.685, but had to add $env:APPDATA\Python\Python39\Scripts to my user $PATH. The default path from Chocolatey Python 3.9 is at C:\Python39\Scripts\

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...