Tarball Flake resolution differs after 2.91 #841
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
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
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: lix-project/lix#841
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?
Describe the bug
Flakes using the Immutable Tarball URL protocol will resolve to different "locked" URLs after Lix 2.91
Steps To Reproduce
nix flake metadata https://nixpkgs.dev/channel/nixos-unstable
with Lix 2.90rev
query parameter added to the "locked" URLExpected behavior
Resolution remains consistent across versions
nix --version
outputAdditional context
It seems Lix is the more technically correct implementation here, as the immutable
link
header does contain therev
query parameter:But Lix >= 2.91 is the only implementation of Nix that will resolve Flakes in this way
Comparision
Nix 2.18:
Nix 2.29:
Lix 2.90:
Lix 2.91:
Lix 2.93:
This results in different
flake.lock
s depending on what implementation/version you're using, which Isn't GreatI feel like I've seen this bug before. It's related to work that I think @ma27 or @alois31 were doing, and I don't really think we are likely to fix it?
idk, maybe CppNix should change their behaviour.
#520 related?