bio

  • 8 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle












  • That seems like an argument for maintaining a frozen repo of packages, not against containers.

    I am not arguing against containers, I am arguing that nix is more reproducible. Containers can be used with nix and are useful in other ways.

    an argument for maintaining a frozen repo of packages

    This is essentially what nix does. In addition it verifies that the packages are identical to the packages specified in your flake.nix file.

    You can only have a truly fully-reproducible build environment if you setup your toolchain to keep copies of every piece of external software so that you can do hermetic builds.

    This is essentially what Nix does, except Nix verifies the external software is the same with checksums. It also does hermetic builds.



  • You might be interested in this article that compares nix and docker. It explains why docker builds are not considered reproducible:

    For example, a Dockerfile will run something like apt-get-update as one of the first steps. Resources are accessible over the network at build time, and these resources can change between docker build commands. There is no notion of immutability when it comes to source.

    and why nix builds are reproducible a lot of the time:

    Builds can be fully reproducible. Resources are only available over the network if a checksum is provided to identify what the resource is. All of a package’s build time dependencies can be captured through a Nix expression, so the same steps and inputs (down to libc, gcc, etc.) can be repeated.

    Containerization has other advantages though (security) and you can actually use nix’s reproducible builds in combination with (docker) containers.