org.chromium.Chromium VS nixpkgs

Seems like it's a buggy wayland fractional scalling implementation... It's reverted in the chromium flatpak https://github.com/flathub/org.chromium.Chromium/commit/eea7af903decb3a3b9bb6fdacbb55d24a90e18f3

My philosophy has been to let the distro package manager handle system packages (kernel, OpenSSL, etc) but then use flatpak [1] to install user progs like Chromium and VSCode so I get bleeding edge releases and sandboxing.

[1] https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.chromium.Chromium

If it helps I'm using https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.chromium.Chromium along with https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.github.tchx84.Flatseal

You can inspect how Chromium is built on Flatpak here: https://github.com/flathub/org.chromium.Chromium

Oh that doesn't work? Hmm I wonder if you could try the executable listed at https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.chromium.Chromium and put that in your config?

No need to trust anything, unlike snaps, the way they're distributed is public and open source: https://github.com/flathub/org.chromium.Chromium

Would a workaround be installing chromium from flathub, and using that for browsing? https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.chromium.Chromium

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...