ubuntu-pro-client VS nixpkgs

Restore 20apt-esm-hook.conf which Pop OS maintainers apparently deleted.sudo wget -O /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20apt-esm-hook.conf https://raw.githubusercontent.com/canonical/ubuntu-pro-client/main/apt-hook/20apt-esm-hook.conf

libimage-magick-perl imagemagick libjs-jquery-ui libopenexr25 perlmagick  libmagick++-6.q16-8 libmagickcore-6.q16-6-extra libimage-magick-q16-perl  libmagickwand-6.q16-6 imagemagick-6.q16 libeditorconfig0  libmagickcore-6.q16-6 imagemagick-6-common Learn more about Ubuntu Pro at https://ubuntu.com/pro

Learn more about Ubuntu Pro at https://ubuntu.com/pro

Search the page for free and you’ll see where it’s free for personal use.

$ sudo apt full-upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done Calculating upgrade... Done Get more security updates through Ubuntu Pro with 'esm-apps' enabled: python2.7-minimal libimage-magick-perl libjs-jquery-ui libopenexr25 libmagick++-6.q16-8 libmagickcore-6.q16-6-extra libimage-magick-q16-perl libmagickwand-6.q16-6 imagemagick-6.q16 libmagickcore-6.q16-6 imagemagick-6-common python2.7 libpython2.7-minimal libpython2.7-stdlib Learn more about Ubuntu Pro at https://ubuntu.com/pro 0 to upgrade, 0 to newly install, 0 to remove and 0 not to upgrade.

Recently Ubuntu restarted Expanded Security Maintenance initiative in a form of Ubuntu Pro

I'm not sure about support for multiverse. The Ubuntu Pro page just says Universe. According to the Repositories definition Multiverse "contains software that is not free" so I don't think they could update it even if they wanted to.

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...