flake-utils-plus
rfcs
flake-utils-plus | rfcs | |
---|---|---|
19 | 51 | |
444 | 488 | |
- | 2.5% | |
4.9 | 4.6 | |
23 days ago | 2 days ago | |
Nix | ||
MIT License | Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
flake-utils-plus
-
[Question] When using flakes, can I remove all channels?
You don't need channels to use nix-shell or nix-env. You can generate the Nix path and registry from your flake inputs. flake-utils-plus makes this easy with nix.generateRegistryFromInputs and nix.generateNixPathFromInputs.
-
How do I deploy a configuration to a machine with an existing hardware-configuration.nix?
Use flake-utils-plus to easily define multiple systems in flake.nix.and then use the --target-host flag of nixos-rebuild to deploy it remotely.
-
Have a shell command in configuration.nix that runs on nixos-rebuild
If you're trying to handle multiple systems with one config a flake is a significantly better option. I would personally recommend looking at flake-utils-plus and specifically this example config.
- Nix Flakes
-
Best way to manage multiple home manager configs for both NixOS and non-NixOS systems using flakes?
I looked at some past threads / examples and saw people recommend flake-utils-plus, but after reading the examples I don't understand how I would get home-manager on Darwin or Ubuntu.
-
Nix: Taming Unix with Functional Programming
Depending on your specific needs, the channelsConfig (modify arguments passed to Nixpkgs) and overlay tooling in flake-utils-plus may be adequate: https://github.com/gytis-ivaskevicius/flake-utils-plus/tree/...
-
What to do...
For flakes you don't have to set up everything manually there are helper libraries, I use flake-utils-plus.
-
How shall I install a package not found at https://search.nixos.org/packages?
Converting to flakes is not that hard if you use a good library. The documentation is other people's configs, really.
-
I made a thing you can load in Nix repl to get variables from your NixOS configuration
Neat! I've been using flake-utils-plus's implementation until now. https://github.com/gytis-ivaskevicius/flake-utils-plus/blob/master/lib/repl.nix
-
How to use a patched nixpkgs locally?
I use flake-utils-plus based configuration to apply patches on top of nixpkgs where overlays don't suffice.
rfcs
-
Nix: The Breaking Point
You may consider this view biased, but we have this: https://srid.ca/nixos-mod
* September 2023: The "Nix Community Survey 2023" is looking for gender data, and the mods don't like that most contributors are men.
* November 2023: The moderation team tries to institute a Code of Conduct https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/114 ... and they get their way
* November 2023: Some are not happy about it: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/moderation-team-accountability... -- the moderators talk about their "authority" and of course lock and hide the thread. It's "disruptive" and "off-topic", you see.
* This sort of activity continues -- moderators consolidating and increasing their power, citing how they need the power to control "concern trolls" and such -- and now in April 2024, we get https://save-nix-together.org/
The "anonymous contributors" want to drive out the NixOS founder entirely, so that _they_ are in charge. They want "to hold people accountable for bad behaviour at all levels" and lament having "responsibility without authority" - in other words, they want power, power, power. They want power over everyone. Their justification is that they believe they have the moral high ground, and they deserve to lord it over everyone else.
Hold onto that hard power, Eelco, and tell this lot to fork the project. Let's see how they enjoy moderating noxious.org instead of nixos.org
-
What Nix Will Have Been
https://old.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1ceiz36/thoughts_on_...
And the RFC to improve the situation:
https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/175
-
Eelco Dolstra's leadership is corrosive to the Nix project
> (after eelco ignored the PR for quite a while, also!)
Clicking that link takes us to a PR that was opened on 2024-02-02. The initial response from the Nix author comes 7 minutes later. Puck has multiple back and forths with other members Github, but her next interaction with the Nix author comes the next day on 2024-02-03. This is also the first time in the conversation where she "reminds him ... to even read her PR message". There's a second interaction later that same day during which she does similar, but it's worth noting this is pointing to a different message and appears to be less a "reminder to read" and more re-iterating what they feel is their argument against the Nix author's own arguments. Puck then continues to have back and forth with other commenters but as of today, there has been no further comments from the Nix author after 2024-02-03, and no further comments from Puck after 2024-02-08.
This hardly to my mind qualifies either as "having to remind him multiple times to even read her PR message at all" or "after eelco ignored the PR for quite a while, also!" So as I said it's a fairly weak claim, and feels more like a "bastard eating crackers" reaction to the PR than an actual showing of poor behavior.
As for the "Meson example", I didn't ignore it. As I stated in my comment, I had at that point read two of the referenced discussions in detail, and thus commented on them. I didn't comment in the "Meson example" for the simple reason that I hadn't read it.
I have read it now, and equally find it confusing.
1) The claim in the letter is that the proposal has "passed RFC, for five years", yet the RFC itself only appears to have been opened 2022-08-24. It's been a while since grade school for me, and I'll admit COVID has warped all our sense of time, but I'm pretty sure 2022 is not 5 years ago.
2) The first completed working implementation of the change doesn't appear to have been done until 2023-01-18 (https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-13874661...). Again this is much less than 5 years old.
3) On 2023-03-20, the author of the PR for this change states:
> the RFC has made it past most of the early stages and the current goal is to achieve parity with the current buildsystem before replacing it.
(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-14768433...)
Again, this doesn't seem to fit at all with the claim that the proposal has "passed RFC, for five years"
4) On 2023-11-01, the Nix author themselves asks for updates on the RFC implementation, an action which doesn't seem congruent with someone who is willy nilly single handedly blocking things and being a disruption to the process. And the author of the PR states:
>the main block is actually a lack of free time for the main devs!
(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-17890770...)
This doesn't seem to point to evidence that the Nix author is single handedly holding up this process.
5) On 2024-03-21 the PR author notes:
> currently working on adding support to build nix-perl, waiting for assistance
(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-20135356...)
Not to sound like a broken record, but if the issue isn't finished as of a few weeks ago, it can hardly be considered to be held up by the Nix author for 5 years.
I agree that one of the links in the open letter is to a comment on a PR from 2019, which is indeed 5 year ago, and does indeed contain the Nix author commenting that they are skeptical of the change because "he doesn't know meson but knows his own build system". But given that there's an entire wealth of history on the topic since then, including progress on the feature that appears completely unobstructed by the Nix author and an open PR that is a mere 3 weeks old for a current implementation, I find myself again unconvinced of this rampant bad behavior on the part of the Nix author. And I reiterate again that these complaints are very weak and don't do much to support the open letter at best, and act as contrary evidence at worst.
Again there might be other context to be had that is missing, but if one is going to write a massive "open letter" complaining about bad behavior, I expect the links in that letter to point to actual bad behavior, and or provide the relevant context necessary to show how what appears to be normal dissent is a passive aggressive continuation of obstruction. I have to assume the links one provides in an open letter is their strongest evidence, and if this is all the authors have... I am unconvinced.
-
Build System Schism: The Curse of Meta Build Systems
Nix with dynamic derivations (RFC92) could potentially beat this curse.
https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0092-plan-dyn...
-
Show HN: Flox 1.0 – Open-source dev env as code with Nix
See: A plan to stabilize the new CLI and Flakes incrementally https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136
- RSS can be used to distribute all sorts of information
-
I like gentoo's package deprecation process
NixOS recently introduced "problem" infrastructure to deal with such problems more gracefully and explicitly:
https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0127-issues-w...
-
NixOS and Flakes Book: An unofficial book for beginners (free)
For some more context: Flawed as they are, Flakes solve a large number of problems Nix experiences without them. This is why I, and presumably many others, use them even in their current experimental state.
An RFC was recently accepted to commit to forming a plan towards stabilization of Flakes: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136
Personally, I don't believe there won't be any breaking changes, but I also believe that the stabilization of Flakes is still a ways away and hope that there will be a reasonable migration path.
- NixOS RFC 136 approved: A plan to stabilize the new CLI and Flakes incrementally
- NixOS RFC 136 accepted: A plan to stabilize the new CLI and Flakes incrementally
What are some alternatives?
Home Manager using Nix - Manage a user environment using Nix [maintainer=@rycee]
nix-ros-overlay - ROS overlay for the Nix package manager
flake-utils - Pure Nix flake utility functions [maintainer=@zimbatm]
not-os - An operating system generator, based on NixOS, that, given a config, outputs a small (47 MB), read-only squashfs for a runit-based operating system, with support for iPXE and signed boot.
nixGL - A wrapper tool for nix OpenGL application [maintainer=@guibou]
nixpkgs - Nix Packages collection & NixOS
poetry2nix - Convert poetry projects to nix automagically [maintainer=@adisbladis]
nix - Nix, the purely functional package manager
NixOS-docker - DEPRECATED! Dockerfiles to package Nix in a minimal docker container
spack - A flexible package manager that supports multiple versions, configurations, platforms, and compilers.
deploy-rs - A simple multi-profile Nix-flake deploy tool.
emacs-overlay - Bleeding edge emacs overlay [maintainer=@adisbladis]