nix-installers VS nixpkgs

If you install it from the community RPM installer, it works as they have SELinux support added: https://github.com/nix-community/nix-installers

I tried to install the Nix package manager on my Fedora 37 machine. Having read about some issues with installing Nix with the install script on Fedora and other OS, using Selinux, I chose install via "nix-installers" rpm-packe (https://github.com/nix-community/nix-installers/issues/16). Unfortunately, I get warnings about created uids throughout the install process not being in the scope of `SYS_UID_MAX 999`. Furthermore, after rebooting the computer, I end up with a flickering black screen instead of on my (Gnome) Desktop environment.

Looks like you already found u/adisbladis legacy installers and opened a feature request for Silverblue support. Your best bet would be to start learning how SELinux policies work and see if you can adapt those for the way that you've set up Silverblue, or to see if you can modify the RPM builder to accommodate Silverblue by putting the Nix store under /var and bind mounting it onto /nix, like those other instructions floating around do.

There's work to add nix to silverblue via community packaging: https://github.com/nix-community/nix-installers/pull/8

I think nonguix also uses equivalent machinery for its Steam package: https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix/-/blob/master/nongnu/pack...

Maybe there are docs on repurposing that someone more familiar with nonguix can point to.

Apparently there is an rpm-ostree-friendly RPM build of Nix that can be used to install Nix on Silverblue as well: https://github.com/nix-community/nix-installers/pull/8

It includes some code to get around the group/user management quirks that some other commenters have noted b0rked the Guix installer, so perhaps it gives an outline of how to install Guix on Silverblue for a hacker who'd like to try it :)

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