This makes 'nix build' work on paths (which will be copied to the
store) and store paths (returned as is). E.g. the following flake
output attributes can be built using 'nix build .#foo':
foo = ./src;
foo = self.outPath;
foo = builtins.fetchTarball { ... };
foo = (builtins.fetchTree { .. }).outPath;
foo = builtins.fetchTree { .. } + "/README.md";
foo = builtins.storePath /nix/store/...;
Note that this is potentially risky, e.g.
foo = /.;
will cause Nix to try to copy the entire file system to the store.
What doesn't work yet:
foo = self;
foo = builtins.fetchTree { .. };
because we don't handle attrsets with an outPath attribute in it yet,
and
foo = builtins.storePath /nix/store/.../README.md;
since result symlinks have to point to a store path currently (rather
than a file inside a store path).
Fixes#7417.
This makes the position object used in exceptions abstract, with a
method getSource() to get the source code of the file in which the
error originated. This is needed for lazy trees because source files
don't necessarily exist in the filesystem, and we don't want to make
libutil depend on the InputAccessor type in libfetcher.
This is a really old test case (which was originally written before the
proper Nix syntax). The tested deep comparison behavior was implemented
and reverted soon after due to performance problems, but it has been
restored in today's Nix again (thanks to the derivation comparison
optimization, presumably).
This commit adds a test covering the discrepancy between parseDrvName's
implementation and documentation (the discrepancy was eliminated in the previous
commit).
I just had a colleague get confused by the previous phrase for good
reason. "valid" sounds like an *objective* criterion, e.g. and *invalid
signature* would be one that would be trusted by no one, e.g. because it
misformatted or something.
What is actually going is that there might be a signature which is
perfectly valid to *someone else*, but not to the user, because they
don't trust the corresponding public key. This is a *subjective*
criterion, because it depends on the arbitrary and personal choice of
which public keys to trust.
I therefore think "trustworthy" is a better adjective to use. Whether
something is worthy of trust is clearly subjective, and then "trust"
within that word nicely evokes `trusted-public-keys` and friends.
Robert Hensing
Yorick
Jörg Thalheim