repology-rules VS nixpkgs

A lot, it's (also) a complete linux distribution. See https://guix.gnu.org/en/packages/ and for comparison with other distros: https://repology.org/ It looks like they entered the top ten since last time I checked.

I'm having a hard time believing it, but apparently nixpkgs is larger than AUR per https://repology.org/?

Generally, the easiest thing to do is to do nothing - if your software is useful and people are using it, then packagers will show up. You can track what distros packaged your project on https://repology.org/.

I remember when the internet was smaller (20 years ago?) some people would have a comparison of different package managers for linux distros where they would dive in to examples and use. Anyway, this is a high level of package currency : https://repology.org/

The last distros I've used that didn't really have their own package managers were Slackware (it is just a tarball) and PuppyLinux (adopted from slackware or debian).

Anyway, Slitaz is here https://repology.org/repository/slitaz_cooking

You can basically install nix packages on every Linux and even MacOS. They are imo better developed and less error prone. You are guaranteed to never have dependency issues. The hashing scheme and idea of representing and building packages from derivation logic is spectacular design. The design of Nix inherently supports atomic upgrades and the likes of an immutable system. Also, afaik, it has the largest package availability currently (at least as many pkgs as Arch's) https://repology.org/

Yep, it's no. 1 on https://repology.org/

Most have it on their website, but you can also check here

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...