[dicytea]

> Guix, Archlinux, Debian do the binary reproducibility better than Nix / NixOS / Nixpkgs.

Huh, didn't know that Arch Linux tests reproducibility. It's apparently 85.6% reproducible: https://reproducible.archlinux.org

I wonder how much work would be needed for NixOS, considering it has more than 80k packages in the official repository.

[chpatrick]

I think that's also a bit of an unfair comparison given the number of AUR packages you usually use on Arch. With nixpkgs there isn't a distinction between official and community packages.

[iopq]

Sure there is, the NUR has a few thousand community packages that are not ready for release

The nixpkgs are all official packages, it's just really easy to become a maintainer (you make a pull request adding the package you want to maintain)

[chpatrick]

I'm just saying that X% of arch official packages being reproducible isn't a complete statistic when many day to day things are in AUR, most of which are in nixpkgs not NUR.

[Foxboron]

AUR is unsupported, and the fact that nixpkgs decides to support everything is for them to decide.

Reaching for reproducible builds support in Arch is a more attainable goal than for nixpkgs. Properly maintaing 80k packages without regressions is going to be a lot more work in the long term.