flake-utils-plus VS nixpkgs

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/...

For flakes you don't have to set up everything manually there are helper libraries, I use flake-utils-plus.

Converting to flakes is not that hard if you use a good library. The documentation is other people's configs, really.

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

I use flake-utils-plus based configuration to apply patches on top of nixpkgs where overlays don't suffice.

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...