flake-parts VS nix2container

There are attempts like

https://flake.parts/

or

https://github.com/nix-community/flakelight

Their aim is to create an ecosystem of reusable Nix libraries. But it is tiny.

You can also just install flakes doing nix profile install . I wrote a tool to make it a bit easier, npt but it's completely optional. Once you install the packages with nix profile. Then in your repos you can use a flake with a devShell and run nix develop. Check https://flake.parts to write your flakes.

Definitely use flakes from the get-go. It's much more sane. Nix's documentation can be unorganized, but read through it when you can. Modules and other projects tend to have their own documentation as well, like Home Manager and flake-parts

That's not a typo, there OP is referring to https://github.com/hercules-ci/flake-parts

No discussion about Nix-built containers is complete with nix2container:

https://github.com/nlewo/nix2container

It is truly magical for handling large, multi-layered containers. Instead of building the container archives themselves and storing them in the nix store, it builds a JSON manifest that is consumed by a lightly patched version of skopeo that streams the layers directly to either your local container engine or the registry.

This means you never rebuild or reupload a container layer that is unchanged.

- Container images are built with https://github.com/nlewo/nix2container instead of Nix's built-in docker tools, because nix2container allows configuration of layers and thus makes it easier to share layers between images and improve layer caching.

As for integrating it into our CI pipeline, this is pretty much CI system agnostic as all you have to do is run `nix build ...` inside the pipeline, generating a `result` directory or file as an artifact that, in the case of nix2container, can be pushed to your container image registry.

dockerTools is the canonical way, but https://github.com/nlewo/nix2container seems to be gaining support as it's faster and doesn't use so much disk space while building.

> The key factor behind our decision was the realization that while Docker images are industry standard, moving around 100s of megabytes of images seems unnecessarily heavy-handed when we just need to synchronize a small change.

I think the culprit is more the GitHub Actions cache than Docker since it seems to be hard to get a clean cache management. I'm not sure about caching Docker image layers, but caching the Nix store with GitHub Actions is pretty complicated (not even sure it's possible): this means we have to download all required Nix store paths on each run, but i consider this is because of a GitHub Action cache limitation.

So, did you consider using another CI, which offers better caching mechanisms?

With a CI able to preserve the Nix store (Hydra[1] or Hercules[2] for instance), I think nix2container (author here) could also fit almost all of your requirements ("composability", reproducibility, isolation) and maybe provide better performances because it is able to split your application into several layers [2][3].

Note i'm pretty sure a lot of Docker CI also allows to efficiently build Docker images.

[1] https://hercules-ci.com/

[2] https://grahamc.com/blog/nix-and-layered-docker-images

[3] https://github.com/nlewo/nix2container/blob/85670cab354f7df6...

FYI, the nix2container [1] project (author here) aims to speedup the standard Nix container workflow (dockerTools.buildImage) by basically skipping the tarball step: it directly streams non already pushed layers.

[1] https://github.com/nlewo/nix2container

To get Rust incremental builds, did you consider using something such as crane https://github.com/ipetkov/crane ?

And regarding OCI images, i built nix2container (https://github.com/nlewo/nix2container) to speed up image build and push times.

For a more modern iteration of that idea, check out https://github.com/nlewo/nix2container

It has all the benefits of OP but produces the images much faster, and with less on-disk usage.

I've been using nix2container[1] for awhile now. It looks like this depends on Docker, have you guys considered removing that dependency? It shouldn't be necessary to create an OCI compliant image with Nix.

[1]: https://github.com/nlewo/nix2container

With https://github.com/nlewo/nix2container, I'm trying to make a more standalone tool. Basically, a Go binary takes a reference graph and produces a JSON file describing a container image. This JSON file is then ingested by a Skopeo fork (it adds a new `transport`) to produce images (to file, registries,...).

Currently, it supports the dockerTools layering algorithm and is designed to work with Guix [1] as well;)

[1] https://github.com/nlewo/nix2container/blob/065e5b108650ee4c...