This makes it more useful. In general, the derivation will be in one
store, and the realisation info is in another.
This also helps us avoid duplication. See how `resolveDerivedPath` is
now simpler because it uses `queryPartialDerivationOutputMap`. In #8369
we get more flavors of derived path, and need more code to resolve them
all, and this problem only gets worse.
The fact that we need a new method to deal with the multiple dispatch is
unfortunate, but this generally relates to the fact that `Store` is a
sub-par interface, too bulky/unwieldy and conflating separate concerns.
Solving that is out of scope of this PR.
This is part of the RFC 92 work. See tracking issue #6316
Whereas `ContentAddressWithReferences` is a sum type complex because different
varieties support different notions of reference, and
`ContentAddressMethod` is a nested enum to support that,
`ContentAddress` can be a simple pair of a method and hash.
`ContentAddress` does not need to be a sum type on the outside because
the choice of method doesn't effect what type of hashes we can use.
Co-Authored-By: Cale Gibbard <cgibbard@gmail.com>
Previously it was not possible to open a local store when its database is on a read-only filesystem. Obviously a store on a read-only filesystem cannot be modified, but it would still be useful to be able to query it.
This change adds a new read-only setting to LocalStore. When set to true, Nix will skip operations that fail when the database is on a read-only filesystem (acquiring big-lock, schema migration, etc), and the store database will be opened in immutable mode.
Co-authored-by: Ben Radford <benradf@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: cidkidnix <cidkidnix@protonmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Dylan Green <67574902+cidkidnix@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: John Ericson <git@JohnEricson.me>
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
This function returns true or false depending on whether the Nix client
is trusted or not. Mostly relevant when speaking to a remote store with
a daemon.
We include this information in `nix ping store` and `nix doctor`
Co-Authored-By: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems>
The code is not local-store-specific, so we should share it with all
stores. More uniform behavior is better, and a less store-specific
functionality is more maintainable.
This fixes a FIXME added in f73d911628 by @edolstra himself.
With the switch to C++20, the rules became more strict, and we can no
longer initialize base classes. Make them comments instead.
(BTW
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2287r1.html
this offers some new syntax for this use-case. Hopefully this will be
adopted and we can eventually use it.)
Rather than using `/nix/var/nix/{profiles,gcroots}/per-user/`, put the user
profiles and gcroots under `$XDG_DATA_DIR/nix/{profiles,gcroots}`.
This means that the daemon no longer needs to manage these paths itself
(they are fully handled client-side). In particular, it doesn’t have to
`chown` them anymore (removing one need for root).
This does change the layout of the gc-roots created by nix-env, and is
likely to break some stuff, so I’m not sure how to properly handle that.
This also moves the file handle into its own Sync object so we're not
holding the _state while acquiring the file lock. There was no real
deadlock risk here since locking a newly created file cannot block,
but it's still a bit nicer.
In principle, this should avoid deadlocks where two instances of Nix are
holding a shared lock on big-lock and are both waiting to get an
exclusive lock.
However, it seems like `flock(2)` is supposed to do this automatically,
so it's not clear whether this is actually where the problem comes from.
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.
- call close explicitly in writeFile to prevent the close exception
from being ignored
- fsync after writing schema file to flush data to disk
- fsync schema file parent to flush metadata to disk
https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/7064
