patchelf VS nixpkgs

I mean, we don't have to hack the elf loader if we just rewrite every elf binary using patchelf: https://github.com/NixOS/patchelf

The parent commenter is already suggesting "just run a regex", so it seems like a trivial extension to their simple solution to "just run patchelf on every binary on your system"

Patching paths in text files typically used substituteInPlace (including in cowsay). For dynamic libraries, patchelf is typically used.

Install patchelf.

Thank you! I followed the instruction here, but it looks like I didn't actually install it, because my pacman -Q patchelf did not find anything. Maybe I was missing a dependency. Also, it was late so I didn't pay attention to warnings at the time.

How does an article on NixOS talk about the `rpath` issue without also mentioning the `patchelf` utility that NixOS developers created to solve this issue? It's a small tool that lets you modify ELF executables and binaries. It's also the recommended way for NixOS users to modify binaries to work properly.

https://github.com/NixOS/patchelf

So install it? https://github.com/NixOS/patchelf

NixOS doesn't have stable paths to shared libraries like macOS or other linux distributions (and this is the core feature) and always need to patch elf for current paths ( https://github.com/NixOS/patchelf ).

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...