dnf VS nixpkgs

I just use dnf-makecache.service to handle background metadata syncs. Just modify the dnf-makecache.timer to manage when these occur.

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/1879

However its o my going to work on rhel 10 or anything that has very very up to date DNF version.

Sure. Raise a bug report. Asking nicely on Reddit isn't going to make it happen.

I'm not sure, I'm not a dnf developer. It was implemented in C++, so it would probably have to be done differently in version 4. I belive dnf development is focused on version 5 right now, so adding features to version 4 is probably not a high priority. It would be nice to see it in version 4 so it could be added to current versions of RHEL and Fedora, but time is a finite resource. Perhaps you could implement and send a pull request, or at least file a bug to discuss it upstream?

dnf uses python only for command line functionality. Its core part, libdnf, is written in C++. However yes, dnf in my experience is still significantly slower than apt and pacman.

Lots of people use python apps and not know about it. I don't get where the idea that it's complicated comes from. You run them the same way as everything else. For example if you use anything redhat-based you're running a python app (https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf). If you're running any desktop environment, you're likely using at least one python app or something with python scripting embedded.

Of course they also changed the default fedora dnf.conf to make it include best=False, so there was no change, except users can simply delete this line in dnf.conf to enable best.

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...