3 ms·

Isn't nixpkgs still a pretty bad state? I know there used to be a lot of "abandoned" packages that went years without updating to the new versions provided by u

by Pay08 2mo ago

Isn't nixpkgs still a pretty bad state? I know there used to be a lot of "abandoned" packages that went years without updating to the new versions provided by upstream, that a lot of packages were copying binaries around instead of building open source software from the source, etc.

toshinoriyagi 2mo ago
Nixpkgs is one of, if not the largest, package managers by # of packages. I think naturally that will result in more abandoned packages than others. What is the % of abandoned packages relative to total I can't say. Nix tends to have updates almost as quickly as Arch does, I run a lot of bleeding edge software and have no issues, and the breadth of packages is immense. Nix just has a different style. With the AUR, you can adopt an abandoned package more easily. That has pros and cons (the AUR has recently suffered multiple supply-chain attacks due to packages being adopted and infected).
- Pay08 2mo ago
  > Nixpkgs is one of, if not the largest, package managers by # of packages. I'm fairly certain that the graph you're thinking of is complete bullshit. It only had approximately a third of the package count listed for a particular Ubuntu version than said version had in actuality.
  - abacate 2mo ago
    > It only had approximately a third of the package count listed for a particular Ubuntu version than said version had in actuality Source?
    - Pay08 2mo ago
      apt-list on said Ubuntu system.
nickdichev 2mo ago
A common pattern is to manage your own "overlay" repo on top of nixpkgs to keep the packages you care about up to date.