pdf-tools VS nixpkgs

Also https://github.com/politza/pdf-tools/issues/706

;; Fix blurry PDFs on MacOS. ;; From https://github.com/politza/pdf-tools/issues/51 (setq pdf-view-use-scaling t)

First things first, install pdf-tools, a great Emacs package for viewing pdfs. The default pdf viewer Docview is very limited so you should definitely get this package.

nov.el is pretty nice, although pdf-tools makes PDFs tolerable.

It looks enjoy pdf-tools got a new maintainer and he already changed the the melpa ⠀recipe, so you can get it via the package manager. I think this is a good development. My impression is, that he is new as an Emacs package maintainer, so please be kind and supportive, so he will stay on it for a while. :)

I have been using emacs pdf-tools lately and really enjoying it https://github.com/politza/pdf-tools

View, annotate PDFs and more with Emac's pdf-tools. There is also the built-in doc-view.

[pdf-tools](https://github.com/politza/pdf-tools) will let you do that.

I tried setting (add-hook 'pdf-view-mode-hook (lambda() (linum-mode -1))), which I found here. But it doesn't seem to do anything.

doc-view.el aside, there's https://github.com/politza/pdf-tools which may have its own set of issues.

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.