spack VS cli

> Are we talking about the same autotools?

Yes. Instead of figuring out how to do something particular with every single software package, I can do a --with-foo or --without-bar or --prefix=/opt/baz-1.2.3, and be fairly confident that it will work the way I want.

Certainly with package managers or (FreeBSD) Ports a lot is taken care of behind the scenes, but the above would also help the package/port maintainers as well. Lately I've been using Spack for special-needs compiles, but maintainer ease also helps there, but there are still cases one a 'fully manual' compile is still done.

> Suffice it to say, I prefer to work with handwritten makefiles.

Having everyone 'roll their own' system would probably be worse, because any "mysteriously failure" then has to be debugged specially for each project.

Have you tried Spack?

* https://spack.io

* https://spack.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

Well, good luck with that, cause it's broken.

Previous release miscompiled Python [1]

Current release miscompiles bison [2]

[1] https://github.com/spack/spack/issues/38724

[2] https://github.com/spack/spack/issues/37172#issuecomment-181...

gh is available via Homebrew, MacPorts, Conda, Spack, Webi, and as a…

> I can't count the number of times I've seen people say "md5 is fine for use case xyz" where in some counterintuitive way it wasn't fine.

I can count many more times that people told me that md5 was "broken" for file verification when, in fact, it never has been.

My main gripe with the article is that it portrays the entire legal profession as "backwards" and "deeply negligent" when they're not actually doing anything unsafe -- or even likely to be unsafe. And "tech" knows better. Much of tech, it would seem, has no idea about the use cases and why one might be safe or not. They just know something's "broken" -- so, clearly, we should update.

> Just use a safe one, even if you think you "don't need it".

Here's me switching 5,700 or so hashes from md5 to sha256 in 2019: https://github.com/spack/spack/pull/13185

Did I need it? No. Am I "compliant"? Yes.

Really, though, the main tangible benefit was that it saved me having to respond to questions and uninformed criticism from people unnecessarily worried about md5 checksums.

[1] https://github.com/spack/spack/blob/develop/var/spack/repos/...

In Spack [1] we can express all these constraints for the dependency solver, and we also try to always re-cythonize sources. The latter is because bundled cythonized files are sometimes forward incompatible with Python, so it's better to just regenerate those with an up to date cython.

[1] https://github.com/spack/spack/

You want to look at the tools used for HPC systems, these are generally very well tried and tested and can be setup for single machine usage. Remote access - we use ssh, but web interfaces such as Open On Demand exist - https://openondemand.org/. For managing Jobs, Slurm is currently the most popular option - https://slurm.schedmd.com/documentation.html. For a module system (to load software and libraries per user), Spack is a great - https://spack.io/. You might also want to consider containerisation options, https://apptainer.org/ is a good option.

git clone https://github.com/spack/spack.git ./spack/bin/spack install gcc

GitHub CLI - GitHub on the command line. Great for creating PRs, etc.

This package is widely used for powerful CLI builds, it is used for example for Kubernetes CLI and GitHub CLI, in addition to offering some cool features such as automatic completion of shell, automatic recognition of flags (the tags) , and you can use -h or -help for example, among other facilities.

This Docker image is designed to support implementing Github Actions with Python. As of version 4.0.0., it starts with the official python docker image as the base which is a Debian OS. It specifically uses python:3-slim to keep the image size down for faster loading of Github Actions that use pyaction. On top of the base, we've installed curl gpg, git, and the GitHub CLI. We added curl and gpg because they are needed to install the GitHub CLI, and they may come in handy anyway (especially curl) when implementing a GitHub Action.

You might be interested in GitHub's cli tool, which is open source, if you want to access GitHub without running their proprietary JS code.

https://cli.github.com/

👉 Note: This script uses the GitHub CLI. So make sure you've installed that if you haven't already. Instructions here.

View on GitHub

(Context: I'm pretty thick into Nix, and have been for about four years. Most of this post is focussed on the NixOS desktop experience, so DevOps nerds, ymmv.)

Unpopular opinion: Nix is not that hard.

What's "hard" from a nix-promotion strategy is motivating people to understand why they would want the benefits it offers. Mostly because Nix, especially with home-manager, dramatically worsens UX for several day-to-day tasks, simply by violating the Law of Least Surprise every couple of hours in normal use.

I want a fully idempotent, version-locked, rewindable user environment, with a version-controlled central config, because I have half a dozen devices that, for reasons, I need to keep perfectly interchangeable with one another. Most users do not want this, for the simple fact that mutating their configs and differentiating them locally on specific machines is not a bug, but a feature.

Even more than that, it's an expectation that most software developers share as well.

Case in point: I filed a bug against the GitHub CLI last week. If any org has the scope and motivation to build software that's compatible with NixOS, an OS most of whose users are developers, it should be GitHub, which is, at least notionally, all about developers, developers, developers. A change in GH required a config format migration, which was sensibly done by opening the config .yml and rewriting it.

Of course, this breaks NixOS not just in practice but in principle. NixOS/home-manager makes config files read-only. Surprise! https://github.com/cli/cli/issues/8462

The response from GitHub was basically, "yeah, we knew this was going to happen, we mentioned it to the packagers at NixOS, but we did it anyway, because it was still the best way to proceed for us." (And they weren't wrong.)

Now, once a month is an annoyance, but I run into these problems daily. I can't imagine any sane person -- which I am not -- would persist with using it.

Why do I keep using NixOS, then? Because I am terribly and disproprotionately annoyed by small changes in my user experience, which I find disruptive to my workflow and hence threaten my success. For me, forbidding apps from mutating the config files I established for them is a selling point. Being able to version-control an idempotent declarative config for all of them at once is heaven.

Unless you're like me, you'll hate NixOS. But some were meant for Nix.

Because

To use a proper dynamic auth for ghcr.io you can create a "credential helper" and then it is supported by flux, see here: https://fluxcd.io/flux/cheatsheets/oci-artifacts/#authentication Unfortunately the "official" credential helper for ghcr.io doesn't exist. I use this simple script as a helper: https://gist.github.com/pkit/a98411d21ecc9293066f4579088187d1 Which requires gh cli to be installed.

This Docker image is designed to support implementing Github Actions with Python. As of version 4.0.0., it starts with the official python docker image as the base which is a Debian OS. It specifically uses python:3-slim to keep the image size down for faster loading of Github Actions that use pyaction. On top of the base, we've installed curl gpg, git, and the GitHub CLI. We added curl and gpg because they are needed to install the GitHub CLI, and they may come in handy anyway (especially curl) when implementing a GitHub Action.

Two CLI tools I install right away are the GitHub CLI (via brew) and the Netlify CLI (via npm).