plasma-manager VS nixpkgs

Unfortunately until we find more volunteers in this area, it is hard to see status quo changing. See also https://github.com/nix-community/home-manager/issues/607 and this ongoing project https://github.com/pjones/plasma-manager

Plasma-manager solves both backup and sharing.

A dude wrote a tool to configure KDE with Nix. https://github.com/pjones/plasma-manager Sadly it's a bit iffy, and settings aren't applied until you relog and other things.

Normally yes with the help of home-manager, but you cannot manage your Plasma configuration declaratively, yet. I think there is an effort for configuring Plasma here, but it is not complete yet and did not get any updates since September so maybe it is abandoned or paused for now? If you are fine with using Gnome, there is a dconf module in home-manager so you can also make your desktop environment reproducible. There is also xfconf module for configuring XFCE if you prefer that but I did not use it so I don't know if it is as good as dconf.

however, there is the Plasma Manager which should give you similar or even the same experience as GNOME

Although I still have to look into plasma-manager

As for declarative usage for KDE or Firefox, while I haven't done it personally yet, it is possible by adding extra modules. Home-Manager has config options for Firefox and Plasma Manager, an home-manager module for KDE.

Think I'm going to start using plasma manager and maybe try to contribute.

I've been using plasma manager for kde, it has a command to dump the current configuration to a nix file which is convenient https://github.com/pjones/plasma-manager

On NixOS (probably irrelevant for you, but may as well mention it for others) I've been using plasma-manager.

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...