git-hooks.nix VS nixpkgs

> Good luck getting answers on those questions other than "read the source code" and then followed by "no, not that source code, this branch here".

I experienced a similar situation last week with git-hooks.nix[1], a pre-commit integration for Nix.

I wanted to run biome[2] checks on my repository during pre-push so I wrote a custom hook because git-hooks.nix has pre-defined integrations with prettier and rome, but not biome.

Or that's what I thought. I eventually found out that the rome hook is actually referred as "rome" everywhere but calls biome instead[3]. This wasn't documented anywhere, so I opened an issue[4] suggesting to rename the hook to "biome" and keep the former for backwards compatibility reasons.

As of today, this has been acknowledged by one of the maintainers, whose sole feedback has been to "thumb down" the issue.

TL;DR: It's not just the documentation, but also the code not doing what you would expect. It also seems there's no means to improve the situation other than just forking the project since there's also clearly some kind of communication problem.

[1] https://github.com/cachix/git-hooks.nix

Anyone who already uses Nix and Flakes can use this integration. Anyone who doesn't use Nix can just ignore me, because I'm not here to try converting unconvinced folks.

I don't think it does. I might look into implementimg it though, because I use pre-commit-hooks.nix in my own projects' CI.

> My least favourite bug is that it doesn't always play nicely with NixOS [1], and the maintainer locked me out of the issue for pointing it out.

Oof. Does this solve the problem https://github.com/cachix/pre-commit-hooks.nix (using Nix to manage dependencies)?

I was looking at pre-commit the other day, and wanted to incorporate it into the Nix setup of my projects.

Was it not possible to use something like this? https://github.com/cachix/pre-commit-hooks.nix

Maybe consider adding this to https://github.com/cachix/pre-commit-hooks.nix once you feel it's mature enough.

This will drop you into a shell where `tracexec` is installed.

[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/310158

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