nixpacks

> Is this obvious, simple, and default behaviour? In the documentation[0] they're right next to each other, and `buildImage`[1] (builds a single layer) specifically calls out that you probably want to use `buildLayeredImage` or `streamLayeredImage`[2] (both produce a separate layer per dependency) instead. Neither should cause the final image to include build dependencies, that sounds like they were doing something silly like running `nix-build` from inside a Dockerfile and just taking that as their final image. Which.. yes, would include build cruft. Oh,[3] I guess that was exactly what they were doing after all. And mixing in Debian packages... for reasons, I guess. [0]: https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/stable/#sec-pkgs-dockerTool... [1]: https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/stable/#ssec-pkgs-dockerToo... [2]: https://nixos.org/manual/nixpk

That also jumped out to me as pretty weird. Buildkit as a library is nice, but there's no way it's good enough to justify throwing out the entire project. It feels like there was some big change internally, and the new team either wanted to rewrite and didn't know Rust, or ideologically prefer Go to Rust. Edit: Although looking at it, maybe not? Both the new project railpack[0] and the older one nixpacks[1] are both started by and mostly written by the same person[2], who is also the author of the article in question. So it doesn't look like a team change. It still feels... odd? Less that they made the change, projects go from Rust to Go all the time. But usually it's because of issues with Rust (hard to hire for, learning curve, etc.), describing it like this feels unusual? [0] https://github.com/railwayapp/railpack [1] https://github.co

I think this is something the writer of the article would be delighted to find: https://github.com/railwayapp/nixpacks

If it's using nix for building - there's multiple ways to DIY turn that into a docker container, like pkgs.dockerTools.buildImage or nixpacks: https://github.com/railwayapp/nixpacks

I think this is true for Nix in the deployment/ops space, where debugging a broken build can be very frustrating. Language improvements are going to be less useful for app developers, the Flake learning curve is not going to get better with a type system. Perhaps something like heroku buildpaks (https://github.com/railwayapp/nixpacks ?) would help devs get on the Nix train.

Sorry which distribution exactly? We utilize the python's nixpkgs versioned packages See: https://github.com/railwayapp/nixpacks/blob/f88718efe1156671...

Do builds use sandboxing? It appears not[0], is this in the roadmap? Based on my experiences with node2nix, composer2nix, carnix, etc, I don't blame you for not going that route. Not to knock on the developers of those tools - it's a difficult problem. I apologize if my interpretation is incorrect. [0]: https://github.com/railwayapp/nixpacks/blob/60ab563fdc9bf4fb...

I like Fly.io but I wish it offered something with Nix in the build process like Railway has recently introduced. https://github.com/railwayapp/nixpacks

Dokku Maintainer here. Dokku also supports Dockerfiles, Docker Images, Tarballs (similar to heroku slugs), and Cloud Native Buildpacks. I'm also actively working on AWS Lambda support[1] (both for simple usage without much config as well as SAM-based usage) and investigating Replicate's Cog[2] and Railways Nixpacks[3] functionalities for building apps. There are quite a few options in the OSS space (as well as Commercial offerings from new startups and popular incumbents). It's an interesting space to be in, and its always fun to see how new offerings innovate on existing solutions. [1] https://github.com/dokku/lambda-builder [2] https://github.com/replicate/cog [3] https://github.com/railwayapp/nixpacks