7 ms·

Troubleshooting Nix is mind-numbing. For some of the benefits, it's the price that is need to be paid

by bkiran 2y ago

atrus 2y ago
It doesn't need to be paid though, it's just a result of poor design and poor documentation. It's the only OS where I feel like I'm both 20 years in the future and 20 years in the past.
- 0x69420 2y ago
  there is a very real sense in which nix has been riding on a good idea while ergonomics elsewhere in the field have advanced, yes. make no mistake, the technical work, getting programs to behave themselves in a fairly alien environment etc, has been impressive, but it's like in the marathon to get there, the idea of making that process somewhat nicer has been subject to constant procrastination. which sucks since in some sense the lay packager is working with the exact same tools as the people bringing the whole system together. not just nixpkgs dx has fallen down the list of priorities, but technical debt down to nix itself has accrued as well. the tvix effort emerged from dissatisfaction with instability (the same dissatisfaction that kept the actual version of nix used in a typical nixos install well behind master) well before any administrative/sponsorship struggle snuggle, and i still maintain that an effort more conservative in scope such as lix would have emerged politics aside, as again, what the end user sees switching to that is mostly "oh hey this random thing that repeated segfaults conditioned me out of attempting just... works now lol?" or various ux papercuts just ceasing to be. nix-at-large has a ways to go but i am optimistic
- mikepurvis 2y ago
  I think it's also an issue with the flexibility paradox. There isn't a good single way to package Python for Nix because before you even start there are several key questions which come up that most other distros can't even begin reasoning about: - Are we packaging just one Python package for Nix, or a thing and all its dependencies? - Is the package already on PyPI, and are we packaging the source from there, or is it the source from some upstream? - Are any of the dependencies coming from source, either their upstreams or forks? - For dependencies that already exist in the nixpkgs SHA that is supplying the Python interpreter, do we want to use those versions, or package newer versions? Is it the same decision for everything, or does it vary? - Is there already a Python level dependency locking scheme in place such as poetry/pipenv/uv, or is it a plain setuptools package? Is it acceptable for Nix to become the locking mechanism, or will that mess things up for non-Nix consumers of this? - Are we looking to supply a development environment here too, or is this purely about deployment? To be clear, none of this is an excuse— it's horrifying that there can't be a single "Tool X is the singular Python-on-Nix story, follow the one page tutorial and you're all set". But I think the massive amount of choice and flexibility is the crux of why new methods and tools are still being rapidly invented and proposed. For myself, I would choose poetry2nix as how I'd ship a Python project to Nix hosts, but that immediately implies some answers to a bunch of the above questions, mandates poetry for your top level project, and once you look closer there turn out to be some truly horrifying implementation details [1] that are what make poetry2nix appear as seamless and friendly as it does. [1]: https://github.com/nix-community/poetry2nix/blob/master/overrides/build-systems.json https://github.com/nix-community/poetry2nix/blob/master/over...
  - bandrami 2y ago
    I can't think of a single external packaging system that actually does Python non-painfully. Then again I can't think of an internal Python packaging system (there are like 5 now) that does Python non-painfully. But since one of the selling points of Nix is "it's like virtualenv but for everything", it's a little disappointing that it doesn't mesh better. I'm not a Python developer, though I use applications that require Python libraries. I don't want a separate numpy for every application I use tucked away in my home folder somewhere; I want a system numpy provided by my distro that can't get out of sync because there's only one copy of it anywhere.
    - mikepurvis 2y ago
      I think the Debian model is okay, it just falls down in terms of being able to have any kind of meaningful cooperation between the debs and what pip does, and of course there's the massive velocity mismatch between what's on PyPI and what's in your distro.... and of course no way to install more than one instance of something so heaven help you if you have two down-tree packages that depend on a different version of a thing. Okay yeah no, even Debian pretty much sucks.
      - bandrami 2y ago
        And this isn't new: it was true for gems with Ruby, it was true for pear with PHP, it was true for CPAN with perl. I don't do javascript at all but I assume it's doubly true for npm just because that place seems to make even pypi look conservative and glacial. I've mostly come around to the belief that if an piece of software has a package manager you should just use it instead of your system package manager. But man do I miss the days of CPAN packages that might update once a year.
        mikepurvis 2y ago
        Generally I'm in agreement, but the one place that starts to fall apart is with bindings— if there's a native code library, then I really would prefer that library come in from the native package manager rather than be smuggled in by pip... but that's not generally how it works these days, and outside of Nix there isn't a great way to resolve this case.

Troubleshooting Nix is mind-numbing. For some of the benefits, it's the price that is need to be paid

by bkiran 2y ago

Troubleshooting Nix is mind-numbing. For some of the benefits, it's the price that is need to be paid

It doesn't need to be paid though, it's just a result of poor design and poor documentation. It's the only OS where I feel like I'm both 20 years in the future and 20 years in the past.

0x69420 2y ago
there is a very real sense in which nix has been riding on a good idea while ergonomics elsewhere in the field have advanced, yes. make no mistake, the technical work, getting programs to behave themselves in a fairly alien environment etc, has been impressive, but it's like in the marathon to get there, the idea of making that process somewhat nicer has been subject to constant procrastination. which sucks since in some sense the lay packager is working with the exact same tools as the people bringing the whole system together. not just nixpkgs dx has fallen down the list of priorities, but technical debt down to nix itself has accrued as well. the tvix effort emerged from dissatisfaction with instability (the same dissatisfaction that kept the actual version of nix used in a typical nixos install well behind master) well before any administrative/sponsorship struggle snuggle, and i still maintain that an effort more conservative in scope such as lix would have emerged politics aside, as again, what the end user sees switching to that is mostly "oh hey this random thing that repeated segfaults conditioned me out of attempting just... works now lol?" or various ux papercuts just ceasing to be. nix-at-large has a ways to go but i am optimistic
mikepurvis 2y ago
I think it's also an issue with the flexibility paradox. There isn't a good single way to package Python for Nix because before you even start there are several key questions which come up that most other distros can't even begin reasoning about: - Are we packaging just one Python package for Nix, or a thing and all its dependencies? - Is the package already on PyPI, and are we packaging the source from there, or is it the source from some upstream? - Are any of the dependencies coming from source, either their upstreams or forks? - For dependencies that already exist in the nixpkgs SHA that is supplying the Python interpreter, do we want to use those versions, or package newer versions? Is it the same decision for everything, or does it vary? - Is there already a Python level dependency locking scheme in place such as poetry/pipenv/uv, or is it a plain setuptools package? Is it acceptable for Nix to become the locking mechanism, or will that mess things up for non-Nix consumers of this? - Are we looking to supply a development environment here too, or is this purely about deployment? To be clear, none of this is an excuse— it's horrifying that there can't be a single "Tool X is the singular Python-on-Nix story, follow the one page tutorial and you're all set". But I think the massive amount of choice and flexibility is the crux of why new methods and tools are still being rapidly invented and proposed. For myself, I would choose poetry2nix as how I'd ship a Python project to Nix hosts, but that immediately implies some answers to a bunch of the above questions, mandates poetry for your top level project, and once you look closer there turn out to be some truly horrifying implementation details [1] that are what make poetry2nix appear as seamless and friendly as it does. [1]: https://github.com/nix-community/poetry2nix/blob/master/overrides/build-systems.json https://github.com/nix-community/poetry2nix/blob/master/over...
- bandrami 2y ago
  I can't think of a single external packaging system that actually does Python non-painfully. Then again I can't think of an internal Python packaging system (there are like 5 now) that does Python non-painfully. But since one of the selling points of Nix is "it's like virtualenv but for everything", it's a little disappointing that it doesn't mesh better. I'm not a Python developer, though I use applications that require Python libraries. I don't want a separate numpy for every application I use tucked away in my home folder somewhere; I want a system numpy provided by my distro that can't get out of sync because there's only one copy of it anywhere.
  - mikepurvis 2y ago
    I think the Debian model is okay, it just falls down in terms of being able to have any kind of meaningful cooperation between the debs and what pip does, and of course there's the massive velocity mismatch between what's on PyPI and what's in your distro.... and of course no way to install more than one instance of something so heaven help you if you have two down-tree packages that depend on a different version of a thing. Okay yeah no, even Debian pretty much sucks.
    - bandrami 2y ago
      And this isn't new: it was true for gems with Ruby, it was true for pear with PHP, it was true for CPAN with perl. I don't do javascript at all but I assume it's doubly true for npm just because that place seems to make even pypi look conservative and glacial. I've mostly come around to the belief that if an piece of software has a package manager you should just use it instead of your system package manager. But man do I miss the days of CPAN packages that might update once a year.
      - mikepurvis 2y ago
        Generally I'm in agreement, but the one place that starts to fall apart is with bindings— if there's a native code library, then I really would prefer that library come in from the native package manager rather than be smuggled in by pip... but that's not generally how it works these days, and outside of Nix there isn't a great way to resolve this case.