As discussed in the maintainer meeting on 2024-01-29.
Mainly this is to avoid a situation where the name is parsed and
treated as a file name, mostly to protect users.
.-* and ..-* are also considered invalid because they might strip
on that separator to remove versions. Doesn't really work, but that's
what we decided, and I won't argue with it, because .-* probably
doesn't seem to have a real world application anyway.
We do still permit a 1-character name that's just "-", which still
poses a similar risk in such a situation. We can't start disallowing
trailing -, because a non-zero number of users will need it and we've
seen how annoying and painful such a change is.
What matters most is preventing a situation where . or .. can be
injected, and to just get this done.
This extends the `error: cannot coerce a TYPE to a string` message
to print the value that could not be coerced. This helps with debugging
by making it easier to track down where the value is being produced
from, especially in errors with deep or unhelpful stack traces.
Do this if we want to do `--hash-algo` everywhere, and not `--algo` for
hash commands.
The new `nix hash convert` is updated. Deprecated new CLI commands are
left as-is (`nix hash path` needs to be redone and is also left as-is).
Good to document these formats separately from commands that happen to
use them.
Eventually I would like this and `builtins.derivation` to refer to a
store section on derivations that is authoritative, but that doesn't yet
exist, and will take some time to make. So I think we're just best off
merging this now as is.
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
A small step towards https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/6507
I believe this incomplete definition is one that can be agreed on.
It would be nice to define more, but considering that the issue
also proposes changes to the design, I believe we should hold off
on those.
As for the wording, we're dealing with some very general and vague
terms, that have to be treated with exactly the right amount of
vagueness to be effective.
I start out with a fairly abstract definition of package.
1. to establish a baseline so we know what we're talking about
2. so that we can go in and clarify that we have an extra, Nix-specific
definition.
"Software" is notoriously ill-defined, so it makes a great qualifier
for package, which we don't really want to pin down either, because
that would just get us lost in discussion.
We can come back to this after we've done 6057 and a few years in a
desert cave.
Then comes the "package attribute set" definition.
I can already hear Valentin say "That's not even Nix's responsibility!"
and on some days I might even agree.
However, in our current reality, we have `nix-env`, `nix-build` and
`nix profile`, which query the `outputName` attribute - among others -
which just don't exist in the derivation.
For those who can't believe what they're reading:
$ nix-build --expr 'with import ./. {}; bind // {outputName = "lib";}' --no-out-link
this path will be fetched (1.16 MiB download, 3.72 MiB unpacked):
/nix/store/rfk6klfx3z972gavxlw6iypnj6j806ma-bind-9.18.21-lib
copying path '/nix/store/rfk6klfx3z972gavxlw6iypnj6j806ma-bind-9.18.21-lib' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
/nix/store/rfk6klfx3z972gavxlw6iypnj6j806ma-bind-9.18.21-lib
and let me tell you that bind is not a library.
So anyway, that's also proof of why calling this a "derivation attrset" would be wrong, despite the type attribute.
