Allow not attempting to copy closures to ssh-ng remote builders #171
Labels
No labels
Affects/CppNix
Affects/Nightly
Affects/Only nightly
Affects/Stable
Area/build-packaging
Area/cli
Area/evaluator
Area/fetching
Area/flakes
Area/language
Area/lix ci
Area/nix-eval-jobs
Area/profiles
Area/protocol
Area/releng
Area/remote-builds
Area/repl
Area/repl/debugger
Area/store
bug
Context
contributors
Context
drive-by
Context
maintainers
Context
RFD
crash 💥
Cross Compilation
devx
docs
Downstream Dependents
E/easy
E/hard
E/help wanted
E/reproducible
E/requires rearchitecture
Feature/S3
imported
Language/Bash
Language/C++
Language/NixLang
Language/Python
Language/Rust
Needs Langver
OS/Linux
OS/macOS
performance
regression
release-blocker
stability
Status
blocked
Status
invalid
Status
postponed
Status
wontfix
testing
testing/flakey
Topic/Large Scale Installations
ux
No milestone
No project
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: lix-project/lix#171
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
When the current user is not trusted on the remote machine, sometimes errors can happen where it fails to copy some store path locally to the remote box (e.g. you built a dependency of it locally), and it seems like there is no obvious way to force Lix to not copy such paths and simply rebuild them remotely instead. This is especially silly when the remote builder has more than capacity to build the paths, but Lix just is foolish about it.
This should simply not be an error imo, and it should just trigger the build.
Maybe still warn (just once, not per path) when using this fallback? The main reason I suggest this is that the user might not understand why their path is being built when they were expecting it to be copied and the warning would help clear that up
Yep that sounds reasonable.
I've hit this repeatedly, glad we're picking this up as an issue, it basically broke building my system configuration for awhile