eget VS nixpkgs

View on GitHub

would be good if you added a comparison with https://github.com/zyedidia/eget on your repo

There used to be a project called ginstall.sh that kept like, a manually maintained database of various projects with static binaries and how to install them. It still exists, but maintenance stopped because its model was also not sustainable. Its use case is better covered by tools like asdf, stew, and if you want to get even simpler, eget.

I'm a huge fan of asdf and have been using for years together with direnv! It's great to see how much effort is put into it! I hope more people adopt it so that we don't have to `curl | sh`! One thing I have issues with asdf is security as are no checksums, so, you if I project get compromised you'll get compromised, too. This, of course, is in addition to the third-party asdf plugin getting itself compromised (which is the greater risk). Last, but not least - I wish asdf came with something like eget [0] incorporated so that it can install 99% of the plugins directly and safely! Last, but not least - 99% of the plugins have almost identical code and all that changes is the repo, so, this should be generalized. For example, many years ago I made just one codebase of all HashiCorp plugins [1] and it's been working great!

[0]: https://github.com/zyedidia/eget

[1]: https://github.com/asdf-community/asdf-hashicorp

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...

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.

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.