3 ms·

Care to elaborate? Bazel doesn’t require vendoring the world, and I don’t understand the connection to Nixpkgs.

• Ericson2314 6y ago
  My bad experiences have been trying to package bazel and bazel-built things in Nixpkgs. Bazel and Nix both want to control everything...and it gets ugly. Nix is pretty wall layered, and while it has plenty of UX problems, it's quite easy to predict what it will do. Bazel has the classic problem of new well-funded software of being more polished than architected, and so feels like working with an amorphous blob where all that polish turns on you when you do something weird and now it oozes unforeseen complexity and interactions.
  • amscanne 6y ago
    I’m interested in the specific issues you hit, not just additional metaphors. Bazel, while there’s a learning curve, exists to provide hermetic builds, so I’m surprised that “what it will do” is not predictable.
    • aidenn0 6y ago
      I ran into an issue where bazel broke things pretty badly. Turns out that bazel does PID namespacing, and the build scripts assumed that no two programs with the same PID would share TMPDIR which caused some rather odd behaviors.
  • malkia 6y ago
    What does it mean by "bazel" wants to control everything? AFAIK, it simply needs ways to get to the source of another package - whether it's http_archive, or who knows what, and how to build it.