meta-raspberrypi VS nixpkgs

How do you figure Pis have bad integration with Yocto?

https://github.com/agherzan/meta-raspberrypi

For what it's worth, the entire Pi lineup is also well supported by Buildroot. In-tree, no less.

Embedded linux exactly. Major OEMs are using yocto. Check https://www.yoctoproject.org/

Been there. You don't want alpine or debian. Good gpos, but what you want is Yocto, which will let you build exactly and only what you need piece by piece including only the kernel modules for your hardware, the exact applications you use and no extras, and with a little extra tweaking, you can wire in Mender for ota updates and the ability to push custom images to clients that need specialization, or even fully unlocked images for customers that need it, plus if you're using an SD card, you can send users recovery drives instead of shipping full devices or let them build their own images without your proprietary code

I second Yocto. It's the kernel in use by the OpenBMC project

One last "option" is yocto but tis is not good for desktop, but it can be a fun project.

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...