5 ms·

Right but the comment said they compromised on using a different directory in the end, so it could be under /opt like Homebrew, and not a root directory.

rgoulter 4y ago
One of Nix's benefits is it aims to isolate where programs are installed; so you can have multiple versions of the same program available without conflict. (e.g. programs built with different feature flags, or multiple minor versions). Nix achieves this by storing packages in a path as some hash of its inputs. -- This then allows either compiling or downloading a package, with confidence that it will behave the same way regardless. But, since the files were under /nix, if you put them under /opt, then you wouldn't be able to make use of the compilation caches for /nix.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  I guess I don't understand what you meant by 'The compromise was putting /nix on a separate directory' then?
  - rgoulter 4y ago
    Oops. Wrong word. I meant "separate volume". /nix could still be used if it's on a separate volume. Which still seems less nice than just having /nix on the same volume.
- microtonal 4y ago
  But, since the files were under /nix, if you put them under /opt, then you wouldn't be able to make use of the compilation caches for /nix. Until a very short time ago there was no binary cache for Apple Silicon Macs.
  - lilyball 4y ago
    There are for anything you run as x86_64 (using Rosetta). It's also important if you're cross-compiling anything.
    - microtonal 4y ago
      Sure. But I think 90% of the Nix on Apple Silicon users does not compare about cross-compiling or running x86_64 binaries with Nix. So, everyone is worse off for supporting minor use cases.
      - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        Yes but they found a solution which works for 100% of users. I don’t really understand the complain in this thread. Using an APFS volume just works and is entirely transparent to the user. People could just learn instead of complaining they don’t understand.
yamtaddle 4y ago
> it could be under /opt like Homebrew You can install Homebrew other places, too, for that matter. I'd only tried NixOS (bounced off, couldn't get X-Window working even following tutorials to the letter) not Nix on macOS. "Must be installed in a specific, root directory" is a hard no for me, when it comes to add-on package managers. That's one hell of an odor.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  Homebrew sometimes pretends you can install it somewhere else. Like most things with homebrew, if you try, you will quickly realise this is not regularly tested. > That's one hell of an odor. That’s very much fine. They do that to be able to share the cache between system. There is nothing magical about the root folder by the way. It’s just Apple being annoying.

rgoulter 4y ago

One of Nix's benefits is it aims to isolate where programs are installed; so you can have multiple versions of the same program available without conflict. (e.g. programs built with different feature flags, or multiple minor versions). Nix achieves this by storing packages in a path as some hash of its inputs. -- This then allows either compiling or downloading a package, with confidence that it will behave the same way regardless. But, since the files were under /nix, if you put them under /opt, then you wouldn't be able to make use of the compilation caches for /nix.

chrisseaton 4y ago
I guess I don't understand what you meant by 'The compromise was putting /nix on a separate directory' then?
- rgoulter 4y ago
  Oops. Wrong word. I meant "separate volume". /nix could still be used if it's on a separate volume. Which still seems less nice than just having /nix on the same volume.
microtonal 4y ago
But, since the files were under /nix, if you put them under /opt, then you wouldn't be able to make use of the compilation caches for /nix. Until a very short time ago there was no binary cache for Apple Silicon Macs.
- lilyball 4y ago
  There are for anything you run as x86_64 (using Rosetta). It's also important if you're cross-compiling anything.
  - microtonal 4y ago
    Sure. But I think 90% of the Nix on Apple Silicon users does not compare about cross-compiling or running x86_64 binaries with Nix. So, everyone is worse off for supporting minor use cases.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      Yes but they found a solution which works for 100% of users. I don’t really understand the complain in this thread. Using an APFS volume just works and is entirely transparent to the user. People could just learn instead of complaining they don’t understand.

yamtaddle 4y ago

> it could be under /opt like Homebrew You can install Homebrew other places, too, for that matter. I'd only tried NixOS (bounced off, couldn't get X-Window working even following tutorials to the letter) not Nix on macOS. "Must be installed in a specific, root directory" is a hard no for me, when it comes to add-on package managers. That's one hell of an odor.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
Homebrew sometimes pretends you can install it somewhere else. Like most things with homebrew, if you try, you will quickly realise this is not regularly tested. > That's one hell of an odor. That’s very much fine. They do that to be able to share the cache between system. There is nothing magical about the root folder by the way. It’s just Apple being annoying.