If a package's attribute path, description or name contains matches for any of the
regexes specified via `-e` or `--exclude` that package is excluded from
the final output.
Currently nix-build prints the "printMissing" information by default,
nix build doesn’t.
People generally don‘t notice this because the standard log-format of
nix build would not display the printMissing
output long enough to perceive the information.
This addresses https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/6561
The security.csm ACL is, as far as I know, never reasonable to remove, so let's add it to the ignore-list in the vanilla nix image. This makes this image usable on GKE.
User on Matrix reported install problems which presented as
"vifs:editing error" which we traced back to vim griping about an
existing swap file. When opened interactively, it did this:
E325: ATTENTION
Found a swap file by the name "/etc/.fstab.swp"
owned by: root dated: Sön Apr 24 16:54:10 2022
file name: /private/etc/fstab
modified: YES
user name: root host name: MBP.local
process ID: 1698
While opening file "/etc/fstab"
dated: Sön Apr 24 16:56:27 2022
NEWER than swap file!
...
To quote Eelco in #5867:
> Unfortunately we can't do
>
> evalSettings.pureEval.setDefault(false);
>
> because then we have to do the same in main.cc (where
> pureEval is set to true), and that would allow pure-eval
> to be disabled globally from nix.conf.
Instead, a command should specify that it should be impure by
default. Then, `evalSettings.pureEval` will be set to `false;` unless
it's overridden by e.g. a CLI flag.
In that case it's IMHO OK to be (theoretically) able to override
`pure-eval` via `nix.conf` because it doesn't have an effect on commands
where `forceImpureByDefault` returns `false` (i.e. everything where pure
eval actually matters).
Closes#5867
The git fetcher code used to dereference the (potentially empty) `ref`
input attribute. This was magically working, probably because the
compiler somehow outsmarted us, but is now blowing up with newer nixpkgs
versions.
Fix that by not trying to access this field while we don't know for sure
that it has been defined.
Fix#6554
