[kaba0]

It’s almost as if no matter how reproducible your dependencies are, if the given build process/tool wants to play dirty it will. I really don’t see how arch fairs any better here, care to elaborate? While it is a different problem, my litmus test for package managers is installing gnome a (the whole group) and then seeing whether I can transition to kde or vice versa without a bunch of dependencies lingering around forever. Pacman, apt, etc. all fail terribly here.

[Foxboron]

> I really don’t see how arch fairs any better here, care to elaborate?

Arch has spent a considerably amount of time getting to the figure it has and is in the same position as NixOS to maintain reproducible builds. The claim that NixOS solves this, or is uniquely dispositioned to solve this, is the false. That is what I'm effectively trying to point out here.

>While it is a different problem, my litmus test for package managers is installing gnome a (the whole group) and then seeing whether I can transition to kde or vice versa without a bunch of dependencies lingering around forever. Pacman, apt, etc. all fail terribly here.

That is not what Reproducible Builds is about.

[kaba0]

Well, that’s fair, though with flakes it will further improve in case of nix.

I do know it is not about reproducible builds, I wrote as much, but I still feel that dismissing nix as you did above is not professional.

[Foxboron]

I'm sorry I don't meet your expected level of professionalism on a random internet forum. Rest assured I have filed a deviation report to my manager.