typos VS nixpkgs

There is typos though that takes a bit different of an approach to spell checking. When the default is to ask the user (like in a text editor), a regular spell checker is likely better. typos is more meant for being run in an automated fashion.

I recommend you run https://github.com/crate-ci/typos

Oh yeah, I can see you short hashes being a problem. The challenge has been finding the right heuristic for them

Is there good usage examples for this tool? typos simply traverses directories on invocation, wonder if there's a static analysis equivalent for ltrs.

highly recommend adding https://github.com/crate-ci/typos to your CI...very easy to add to a github action, catch fun spelling errors even in camelCased and snake_cased variable names...catch em before they become public facing APIs

I like to use https://github.com/crate-ci/typos as a command-line option. It's built to run as a service or in CI... I run it in our code review software and it has been a big hit.

there's a little comparison table here https://github.com/crate-ci/typos/blob/master/docs/comparison.md

typos

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...