We're not even using those timestamps, but doing the conversion to
local time takes a lot of time. For instance, this patch speeds up
'nix flake metadata nixpkgs` from 0.542s to 0.094s.
This fixes the error
in pure evaluation mode, 'fetchTree' requires a locked input
when using '--override-input X Y' where Y is an unlocked input (e.g. a
dirty Git tree).
Also, make LockFile use ref instead of std::shared_ptr.
Older versions of Fish (such as those bundled with Ubuntu LTS 22.04) do
not support return outside of functions. We need to use the equivalent
exit instead.
The current definition of `intersectAttrs` is incorrect:
> Return a set consisting of the attributes in the set e2 that also exist in the
> set e1.
Recall that (Nix manual, section 5.1):
> An attribute set is a collection of name-value-pairs (called attributes)
According to the existing description of `intersectAttrs`, the following should
evaluate to the empty set, since no key-value *pair* (i.e. attribute) exists in
both sets:
```
builtins.intersectAttrs { x=3; } {x="foo";}
```
And yet:
```
nix-repl> builtins.intersectAttrs { x=3; } {x="foo";}
{ x = "foo"; }
```
Clearly the intent here was for the *names* of the resulting attribute set to be
the intersection of the *names* of the two arguments, and for the values of the
resulting attribute set to be the values from the second argument.
This commit corrects the definition, making it match the implementation and intent.
Make sure that people who run Nix in non-interactive mode (and so don't have the possibility to interactively accept the individual flake configuration settings) are aware of this flag.
Fix#7086
These settings seem harmless, they control the same polling
functionality that timeout does, but with different behavior. Should
be safe for untrusted users to pass in.
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.
