It is good to propagate the underlying error so whether or not we use a
process to deal with path length issues is not observable.
Also, as these wrapper functions got more and more complex, the code
duplication got worse and worse. The new `bindConnectProcHelper`
function deduplicates them.
This is useful for determining quickly which substituters to query.
An alternative would be for users to invoke the narinfo cache db directly,
so why do we need this change?
- It is easier to use. I believe Nix itself should also use it.
- This way, the narinfo cache db remains an implementation detail.
- Callers get to use the in-memory cache as well.
This does not yet resolve the coupling between packages and
derivations, but it makes the code more consistent with the
terminology, and it accentuates places where the coupling is
obvious, such as
auto drvPath = packageInfo.queryDrvPath();
if (!drvPath)
throw Error("'%s' is not a derivation", what());
... which isn't wrong, and in my opinion, doesn't even look
wrong, because it just reflects the current logic.
However, I do like that we can now start to see in the code that
this coupling is perhaps a bit arbitrary.
After this rename, we can bring the DerivingPath concept into type
and start to lift this limitation.
Otherwise we get a stray `tests/functional/result`, which can cause
spurious failures later.
(I got a failure because the test temp dir effecting the store dir
changed. This caused a test later because Nix didn't want to remove the
old `result` because it wasn't pointing inside the new Nix store.)
The data was (accidentally?) copied into a std::string,
even though the string is immediately converted into a std::string_view.
The code has been changed to construct a std::string_view directly,
such that one copy less happens.
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.
