4 ms·

Me, too, and also I already have a bunch of brew packages which I know are well maintained. So, switch to using both? Uninstall brew packages and install nix ve

Me, too, and also I already have a bunch of brew packages which I know are well maintained. So, switch to using both? Uninstall brew packages and install nix versions, verifying they are all maintained over there? Sorry, no.

ar_lan 3y ago
Nix Darwin supports brew, so this isn't really a reasonable argument. > So, switch to using both? This is an option, yes. Plus, it has the added benefit of you not needing to manage `brew doctor`, `brew cleanup`, etc. yourself. So you're not stuck with weird packages you installed once, never needed again, and forgot to clean up. It's strange that people are so against declarative systems, or even file-based OS configuration. When I get my new Macbook I was up-and-running within a few minutes. I can't imagine maintaining a list of brews I need to re-install just to set up everything + my configs + everything else. Nix Darwin just made this so ridiculously easy. Plus I can share almost all of my configuration with my Linux setups so I have a near-consistent environment whether I'm on Mac or Linux. The overhead of remembering the names for Brew, Apt, Snap, or whatever package managers exist seems like a lot of overhead, and I just value declarative, reproducible systems. Managing my packages on the fly? Sorry, no.
- drbaba 3y ago
  > It's strange that people are so against declarative systems, or even file-based OS configuration. When I get my new Macbook I was up-and-running within a few minutes. I can't imagine maintaining a list of brews I need to re-install just to set up everything + my configs + everything else. I haven’t had time to try Nix yet, but HomeBrew does have a declarative-ish workflow that I’ve been using for years: Brew Bundle [1] lets you have a plaintext file listing all packages you want installed on your system. Add a line for stuff you want installed, delete a line for stuff you want removed, invoke it the right way and it will install/remove packages until your system matches the list. The initial list can be generated by “brew bundle dump” or something like that. For configuration, I find that a normal dotfile repo cloned into my ~/.config (with a script that maintains symlinks to config files in e.g. ~/Library) works well enough for my use. [1]: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-bundle https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-bundle
  - pxc 3y ago
    This is actually the mechanism behind Nix-Darwin's Homebrew support. In Nix terms, it uses the module system to generate a Brewfile, and then it invokes the brew CLI against that file in the activation script. Nix or no Nix, it's definitely a better way to use Homebrew than ad-hoc, imo!
eptcyka 3y ago
Ah, yes, I love it when I need to wait minutes to install a package because brew needs to do some other thing.
- wizerdrobe 3y ago
  “Minutes” seems an awfully small rebuttal to be quite honest. I’ve never had to install a brew package under duress.
  - eptcyka 3y ago
    When I issue a `brew install package` command, I expect it to either install the package or fail installing the package, and not do something else entirely. Sometimes I need to do something quick, nix-shell has never given me any issues with that. Brew has taken 10 minutes before getting to the install process. It's severely annoying.
    - SkyPuncher 3y ago
      By contrast, other package managers just don’t update thing. You end up so out of sync it becomes a massive pain.
      - eptcyka 3y ago
        I can fix the pain when it comes. Brew is already slow, I don't need it to become slower still.

ar_lan 3y ago

Nix Darwin supports brew, so this isn't really a reasonable argument. > So, switch to using both? This is an option, yes. Plus, it has the added benefit of you not needing to manage `brew doctor`, `brew cleanup`, etc. yourself. So you're not stuck with weird packages you installed once, never needed again, and forgot to clean up. It's strange that people are so against declarative systems, or even file-based OS configuration. When I get my new Macbook I was up-and-running within a few minutes. I can't imagine maintaining a list of brews I need to re-install just to set up everything + my configs + everything else. Nix Darwin just made this so ridiculously easy. Plus I can share almost all of my configuration with my Linux setups so I have a near-consistent environment whether I'm on Mac or Linux. The overhead of remembering the names for Brew, Apt, Snap, or whatever package managers exist seems like a lot of overhead, and I just value declarative, reproducible systems. Managing my packages on the fly? Sorry, no.

drbaba 3y ago
> It's strange that people are so against declarative systems, or even file-based OS configuration. When I get my new Macbook I was up-and-running within a few minutes. I can't imagine maintaining a list of brews I need to re-install just to set up everything + my configs + everything else. I haven’t had time to try Nix yet, but HomeBrew does have a declarative-ish workflow that I’ve been using for years: Brew Bundle [1] lets you have a plaintext file listing all packages you want installed on your system. Add a line for stuff you want installed, delete a line for stuff you want removed, invoke it the right way and it will install/remove packages until your system matches the list. The initial list can be generated by “brew bundle dump” or something like that. For configuration, I find that a normal dotfile repo cloned into my ~/.config (with a script that maintains symlinks to config files in e.g. ~/Library) works well enough for my use. [1]: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-bundle https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-bundle
- pxc 3y ago
  This is actually the mechanism behind Nix-Darwin's Homebrew support. In Nix terms, it uses the module system to generate a Brewfile, and then it invokes the brew CLI against that file in the activation script. Nix or no Nix, it's definitely a better way to use Homebrew than ad-hoc, imo!

eptcyka 3y ago

Ah, yes, I love it when I need to wait minutes to install a package because brew needs to do some other thing.

wizerdrobe 3y ago
“Minutes” seems an awfully small rebuttal to be quite honest. I’ve never had to install a brew package under duress.
- eptcyka 3y ago
  When I issue a `brew install package` command, I expect it to either install the package or fail installing the package, and not do something else entirely. Sometimes I need to do something quick, nix-shell has never given me any issues with that. Brew has taken 10 minutes before getting to the install process. It's severely annoying.
  - SkyPuncher 3y ago
    By contrast, other package managers just don’t update thing. You end up so out of sync it becomes a massive pain.
    - eptcyka 3y ago
      I can fix the pain when it comes. Brew is already slow, I don't need it to become slower still.