rawspeed VS nixpkgs

It works fine in the latest stable release of Darktable. You just need the definition for the camera in cameras.xml. Support for the A6700 was already added in the development branch but there hasn't been a new stable release yet since. Fortunately, simply downloading and replacing the file (which you can get from the dev branch on GitHub) suffices.

How about this? https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed/blob/develop/data/...

Propably you can just download cameras.xml and replace the one you locally have https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed/blob/develop/data/cameras.xml

As /u/emkoemko said, support for lossless compressed RAW is not available at this time. The support of Sony lossless RAW in darktable depends on rawspeed implementing support for it. You can follow and contribute to the effort here: https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed/pull/386

Does anyone know what's the way to help with the OM-1 camera support? There's a PR that works really well (https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed/pull/357).

The repo of files used for RAWSpeed (https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed)

No samples on https://raw.pixls.us/ it seems. If you provide samples and open an issue in the rawspeed issue tracker this will make things a lot easier https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed/issues

For some references, see for example DT PR, DT issue, and librawspeed issue.

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...