Hacker News Reader

> Guix, Archlinux, Debian do the binary reproducibility better than Nix / NixOS / Nixpkgs.

Huh, didn't know that Arch Linux tests reproducibility. It's apparently 85.6% reproducible: https://reproducible.archlinux.org

I wonder how much work would be needed for NixOS, considering it has more than 80k packages in the official repository.

View on HN

I think that's also a bit of an unfair comparison given the number of AUR packages you usually use on Arch. With nixpkgs there isn't a distinction between official and community packages.

Sure there is, the NUR has a few thousand community packages that are not ready for release

The nixpkgs are all official packages, it's just really easy to become a maintainer (you make a pull request adding the package you want to maintain)

I'm just saying that X% of arch official packages being reproducible isn't a complete statistic when many day to day things are in AUR, most of which are in nixpkgs not NUR.

AUR is unsupported, and the fact that nixpkgs decides to support everything is for them to decide.

Reaching for reproducible builds support in Arch is a more attainable goal than for nixpkgs. Properly maintaing 80k packages without regressions is going to be a lot more work in the long term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com