hydra

Updating causing a rebuild isn't really a Nix or even a build tool problem though, is it? cache.nixos.org can't provide everything for every architecture all the time. With multiple types of machines involved, you want some sort of binary cache setup, ideally automated with CI. There's niks3 [0], celler [1] (a more active fork of attic [2]), hydra [3]. 0: https://github.com/Mic92/niks3 1: https://github.com/celler-cache/celler 2: https://github.com/zhaofengli/attic 3: https://github.com/NixOS/hydra

See https://github.com/NixOS/hydra/issues/838 for making content-addressed derivations supported by hydra.nixos.org. At that point, we can actually try out the XP feature at scale. Also see https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/8919 for this accepted RFC Once those things are done, we can get back to merging in the IPFS code. Now that there is an Nix team and I am on it, there is much, much less of an issue of these experiments being caught in limbo :).

Also the first CI/CD system built on/for the Nix package manager. A public instance powers the main binary caches for NixOS to this day? https://hydra.nixos.org/ https://github.com/NixOS/hydra

Nix seems great for build servers. This is a great introduction to the motivations behind it. I'm not sold on using it for managing developer environments (another use case it is often used for). It "solves" the problem that developers might be using different versions of libraries or compilers on their machines... but it comes at the cost of having to learn a whole new programming language, a configuration language, a whole new jargon, and workflow. It's a bit like using Docker as a development environment. It introduces a non-trivial amount of friction. Some folks get excited about package management and configuration. Personally I don't care for it enough to over-come such a high learning curve. And I don't particularly like the workflow it enforces. However it is pretty great for reproducible CI/CD systems like Hydra: https://github.c