That doesn’t really make sense with CA derivations (and wasn’t even
really correct before because of FO derivations, though that probably
didn’t matter much in practice)
Resolve the derivation before trying to load its environment −
essentially reproducing what the build loop does − so that we can
effectively access our dependencies (and not just their placeholders).
Fix#4821
Make ca-derivations require a `ca-derivations` machine feature, and
ca-aware builders expose it.
That way, a network of builders can mix ca-aware and non-ca-aware
machines, and the scheduler will send them in the right place.
This fixes both the SunOS/Solaris check, and the libatomic check, which
reference $LIBS, which has not been used since automake was stripped
out of the code.
When the `keep-going` option is set to `true`, make `nix flake check`
continue as much as it can before failing.
The UI isn’t perfect as-it-is as all the lines currently start with a
mostly useless `error (ignored): error:` prefix, but I’m not sure what
the best output would be, so I’ll leave it as-it-is for the time being
(This is a bit hijacking the `keep-going` flag as it’s supposed to be a
build-time only thing. But I think it’s faire to reuse it here).
Fix https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/4450
When adding a path to the local store (via `LocalStore::addToStore`),
ensure that the `ca` field of the provided `ValidPathInfo` does indeed
correspond to the content of the path.
Otherwise any untrusted user (or any binary cache) can add arbitrary
content-addressed paths to the store (as content-addressed paths don’t
need a signature).
Linux is (as far as I know) the only mainstream operating system that
requires linking with libdl for dlopen. On BSD, libdl doesn't exist,
so on non-FreeBSD BSDs linking will currently fail. On macOS, it's
apparently just a symlink to libSystem (macOS libc), presumably
present for compatibility with things that assume Linux.
So the right thing to do here is to only add -ldl on Linux, not to add
it for everything that isn't FreeBSD.
Only considers the closure in term of `Realisation`, ignores all the
opaque inputs.
Dunno whether that’s the nicest solution, need to think it through a bit
Alyssa Ross