BB

@gonzo_askold@mastodon.social: this isn't true, as some builds embed things like the timestamp and build hostname in the artifacts. Nix sets some notion of the timestamp to epoch to account for this, but cannot fix every impurity everywhere (maven builds are notoriously finnicky, for instance). Nix is great at this, but somewhat suffers from embracing the package without submitting the changes it makes to the package upstream. Because nix is so flexible (and doesn't always have the pull that Debian does with packagers), i believe nix has been less influential here than you would hope. This change from Debian is awesome as we will all benefit from the fixes.

@minego@pdx.social: whoa now. At least buy me dinner first!

@raboof@merveilles.town @gonzo_askold@mastodon.social: please don't hear that either I think nixpkgs contributors don't try or that nix and Debian are somehow competing here! Nixpkgs is HUGE and complex and it requires a fair amount of effort to maintain in and of itself. Combined with the relatively small number of contributors, I simply think their focus is generally elsewhere and that nix's flexibility is both a boom and burden here. In my experience, big problems tend to get upstreamed while small ones tend to get substituteInPlace'd (or patchPhase'd away). Re: Maven: I speak from experience, but my experience is admittedly pretty old. I am glad to hear the situation is improving!

@hyperreal@tilde.zone: or olives!

@alice: as penance for my lack of faith, I would be happy to DM you some shots of mine in animal suits. (From my pfp, I am clearly not afraid of putting them online, but there is something about replying to a public toot chain that makes me wary)