patch-package VS nixpkgs

In order to allow users to use their device as a controller to adjust the position of the camera and find stars, I use the depreciated DeviceOrientationControls by patching it back into Three. In order for DeviceOrientationControls to function, we need access the user to grant access to their device's orientation. I attempt to gain access to this, alongside their camera, during a previous step of the UX using a custom composable I wrote for this purpose. You can see that permission step in the mockup video above. Once this permission is granted, we can initialize our DeviceOrienationControls with a single line.

If you use Yarn, there’s the `yarn patch` command [1], which lets you maintain patches for your dependencies. Even though I try to upstream patches wherever possible, sometimes you just want to apply a quick patch and move on, especially if the dependency is poorly maintained or even worse, deeply nested in your dependency hierarchy. I use `yarn patch` regularly, it’s one of the main reasons why I moved to Yarn in the first place.

If you’re not using Yarn, there seems to be a similar thing on npm, `patch-package`. [2] I never had to use that though.

[1]: https://yarnpkg.com/cli/patch

[2]: https://www.npmjs.com/package/patch-package

You can use patch-package to edit the part of the library.

patch-package

NPM doesn't have a patch command, but you can use patch-package to achieve the same result.

If there's issue ticket discussing it and someone can fix it, ask for patch file and use patch-package to patch it

You can try this (I highly recommend you to use the Patch Package library to track changes on any external library that you are using. (https://www.npmjs.com/package/patch-package)

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...