4.2 KiB
+++ date = '2025-04-06T14:49:03+02:00' draft = false title = 'Why I do not use flake-utils' tags = ['nix'] +++
I have been using [Nix] for a while now. Around a year ago, I switched everything from the [servicepoint] library to my [machine configuration] over to flakes.
For me the biggest advantage flakes bring is not additional functionality. Instead, they are an easier and semi-standardized way to do what you could before.
When learning flakes, you often see [flake-utils] being used. With it, you can shorten your flakes by not having to specify everything per system.
Without anything
{
description = "Flake utils demo - without flakes";
outputs = { self, nixpkgs, flake-utils }:
{
packages."x86_64-linux" = rec {
hello = pkgs.hello;
default = hello;
}
packages."aarch64-linux" = rec {
hello = pkgs.hello;
default = hello;
}
# more systems ...
}
}
With flake-utils
{
description = "Flake utils demo";
inputs.flake-utils.url = "github:numtide/flake-utils";
outputs = { self, nixpkgs, flake-utils }:
flake-utils.lib.eachDefaultSystem (system:
let pkgs = nixpkgs.legacyPackages.${system}; in
{
packages = rec {
hello = pkgs.hello;
default = hello;
};
}
);
}
With function in flake
To make a long story short, here is what I usually do instead:
{
description = "forAllSystems demo";
outputs = { self, nixpkgs }:
let
supported-systems = [ # [1]
"x86_64-linux"
"aarch64-linux"
];
forAllSystems =
f:
nixpkgs.lib.genAttrs supported-systems /* [2] */ (
system:
f rec {
pkgs = nixpkgs.legacyPackages.${system}; # [3]
inherit system;
}
);
in
{
packages = forAllSystems ({ pkgs, ... }: rec {
hello = pkgs.hello;
default = default;
});
}
}
That’s definitely more code! - Yes, but it also includes more information in the flake, while getting rid of an external dependency. While more code can be intimidating for beginners, it actually helps remove a barrier to understanding how the flake works in this case. For me, it wasn’t a problem to ignore boilerplate like this at first, slowly learning more language features until I finally understood everything.
At [1], the supported systems are specified. I personally use x86_64-linux
and aarch64-linux
, but I also usually support x86_64-darwin
and aarch64-darwin
in public projects.
If you want to support any system, you can use [nixpkgs.lib.system.flake-exposed
] at [2] instead of defining your own list.
Because the definition is right inside the flake, you can tweak what gets passed to the function. For example, the [flake for RedoxOS-development] I contributed1 this to passes the custom rust-toolchain.
An example for how to do it is already right there: at [3], pkgs
is provided.
Another possible tweak: You may want to define separate supported systems for each output. This is useful, for example, if the target environment you're developing for cannot support a development shell.
For me, the trade-offs are worth it, as they provide greater transparency and control over the flake configuration.
That being said, I fully acknowledge that flake-utils
can still be a great choice for many people. It simplifies things and reduces the need to write boilerplate code, which can be a big plus depending on your needs and workflow. Ultimately, it's a matter of personal preference and the specific requirements of your project.
-
If you check the history, you will see I am not mentioned. I am still a bit salty about that, as it was my first contribution to a bigger OSS project. [Nix]: https://nixos.org/ [servicepoint]: https://git.berlin.ccc.de/servicepoint/servicepoint [machine configuration]: https://git.berlin.ccc.de/vinzenz/nixos-configuration [flake-utils]: https://github.com/numtide/flake-utils [
nixpkgs.lib.system.flake-exposed
]:374e6bcc40/lib/systems/default.nix (L58)
[flake for RedoxOS-development]:cb34b9bd86/flake.nix (L38)
↩︎