xdg-ninja VS nixpkgs

As a user, these variables make my experience simpler. I'm not going to argue that these specifications should be followed by all, because I know there are many users who are committed to dying on the hill that is their cluttered home directory. However, the existence of these variables is not a deterrent to users who do not want to use the specification, as many applications will want to use your home directory anyway. If the existence of these variables made the specification strictly followed, projects like xdg-ninja (https://github.com/b3nj5m1n/xdg-ninja) would have no reason to exist.

Regardagin cargo (and other tools), I've had some success with following suggestions from https://github.com/b3nj5m1n/xdg-ninja

It's not as bad as it used to be. And ther's even software that can help you with that: https://github.com/b3nj5m1n/xdg-ninja

Check out xdg-ninja

https://github.com/b3nj5m1n/xdg-ninja

This utility has been a lifesaver to clean up my home directory.

Stuff like [xdg-ninja](https://github.com/b3nj5m1n/xdg-ninja) helps but... at one point my home is still a mess.

For the ones that adhere to XDG specs, there are tools that can help transition to using these XDG directories and avoid breaking programs - like XDG Ninja - but it's still a sort of manual process that doesn't cover all dotfiles and applications.

There are shell scripts like xdg-ninja that can help with this:

https://github.com/b3nj5m1n/xdg-ninja

View on GitHub

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...