5 ms·
Third point isn't a shortcoming, it's a design choice. Fourth point is objectively false: there are no setuid binaries anywhere in /nix/store. No setcaps eith
by octoberfranklin 5y ago
Third point isn't a shortcoming, it's a design choice.
Fourth point is objectively false: there are no setuid binaries anywhere in /nix/store. No setcaps either. One unprivileged user owns everything under /nix/store. I absolutely love this. Installing a new package cannot create security vulnerabilities, because it cannot affect existing packages or their dependencies, no new processes are spawned, and no setuid/setcap binaries are created. Note I am talking about nixpkgs here, not nixos. If you trust sandboxes (like chrome does) then compiling a new package cannot create security vulnerabilities either.
Second point is just an annoyance. It bothers me too, but we NFS-users lost the mindshare battle long ago. It's all HTTP and SSH now.
- nwmcsween 5y agoThird point could still use something similar to FHS while encoding hashes as file names e.g /api/$TRIPLET/bin/$hash-$name Fourth you could have each package have it's own user/group