PCL VS nixpkgs

Did you read the https://github.com/PointCloudLibrary/pcl/blob/master/test/fuzz/build.sh

If you need some specific UI, you could choose a UI library which are better for your needs, eg. link1, link2 or link3.

Point Cloud Library files (PCD) 2

Point Cloud Library has a bunch of 3D features to choose from. They're for unstructured point clouds but I think they should also work for volumetric data by converting it to point clouds in a 3D grid or something similar.

Hello! I am looking for ways to process geometric data (mainly point clouds). I am familiar with Point cloud Library (PCL) and Point Data Abstraction Library (PDAL) in C++ but can't seem to find an equivalent crate in Rust (Pasture seems to be experimental). Are there any stable/robust alternatives at the moment?

If the point clouds are roughly aligned after applying their global pose, then usually ICP (iterated closest point) is what you want. There is probably what you need in PCL: https://pointclouds.org/

If you're using python then you can use something like https://github.com/daavoo/pyntcloud to manipulate / render from different angles. If you're using c++ try https://pointclouds.org/

I am currently working on a project that uses PCL. PCL supports CUDA (which I require for my project), however I can't seem to figure out how to build / install PCL with CUDA support. I looked at the PCL default.nix, and it seems that it can be built with CUDA support if the "cudatoolkit" package is installed. However, when I add PCL to the buildInputs in my project's shell.nix, it downloads a version of PCL that doesn't have CUDA support and my project fails to build.

Are you aware of the tutorials on https://pointclouds.org ?

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...

True, but irrelevant -- _some packages_, _somewhere_, do depend on xz, which, if built, requires pulling the source from GitHub (see the default.nix: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/nixos-23.11/pkgs/tools...)

It's not the vulnerability that's a problem right now (NixOS was protected by a couple of factors) but rather GitHub's hamfisted response.

That is the problem.