Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[RFC 0123] Flake names #123
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[RFC 0123] Flake names #123
Changes from 10 commits
9515060
08d1fc5
bae96ea
53b1dc7
a108a3b
9acd46f
23e44a1
bb09d85
b077d31
79d2e61
0cb078f
e3b651f
7811f0e
d8c2e19
c3bdc8d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That’s probably worth a bit more explanations: for most intents and purposes, the store is supposed to be an opaque thing, and not meant to be directly “navigated”.
Now it is a very leaky abstraction, so my remark probably doesn’t really hold in practice, but it would be good to make this explicit (maybe show some concrete examples of where having all the sources be called “source” is an issue)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's an issue if you want to know what a nix command is doing at the moment. It often just displays “building XXXX-source”
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I might be wrong, but that exact message shouldn’t happen (not because of flakes at least). This message happens when Nix builds a derivation, but flake sources aren’t derivations, they are directly instantiated during the evaluation (with
builtins.fetchTree
) using a different code path with amongst other things a more informative display.What you might get though is something like “fetching source from https://cache.nixos.org” (because although they aren’t derivations, they can be substituted from the binary cache). Probably we could improve the message in that case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to clarify: That message can happen for reasons unrelated to flakes, because a number of fetchers from nixpkgs hardcode or default
name
to “source” (and these are regular derivations, so you can get that message)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, that’s good to know, sorry for not knowing that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
About the store path being meant to be opaque: In my opinion that’s just practically not true at all, and the fact that derivation names exist at all proves it. If anything, at least this is useful for people that want to spelunk in the depths of what Nix does.
I also regularly use store paths to figure out what package or other source provides some binary in my profile. I have a shell function
goto-bin
for going into the directory of the real path of an executable, and I sometimes skimrealpath
output to see a derivation name.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Making the name accessible will allow flake definition libraries (flake-utils, flake-parts, etc) to automatically use it in some places. For instance when defining an anonymous (non-path-value) module, it's a good idea to use the flake name and module attribute to form the module
key
. Otherwise, the module can't be disabled withdisabledModules
.It will also allow to detect when multiple versions of the same flake are combined, and report a good error message instead of "suchandsuch option has already been defined".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The big drawback here (where “big” would probably need to be refined, I’ve no idea how much of an issue it is in practice) is that since the name is part of the store path, two flakes with the same content but a different name will end-up in a different place in the store − which itself means that everything that depends on them would have to be rebuild.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But flakes with a different name will necessarily have different content? Or are the flake.* files not copied to the store?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair point (I had a convoluted scenario in mind, but that’s probably way out of the scope of this RFC now that I think of it).
That’s actually highlighting an interesting design challenge: There’s currently a neat separation between the fetching code and the code that knows about what the flake is.
inputs.foo = something
gets translated to a call tobuiltins.fetchTree something
, and its result is then fed to theoutputs
function. And thefetchTree
part doesn’t know (nor has to know) that it’s fetching a flake.But if the name gets defined in the flake (and used in the output path), then the
fetchTree
logic must be a bit more convoluted:flake.nix
, evaluate it to find itsname
, and only then put it in the store with the correctname
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wouldn’t it be better to have this conversation outside the review widget? I feel like this aspect of the discussion is somewhat hidden & non-chronological.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This can be solved by adding
name
to the lock file.We can use the same trick for other fetch-related parameters, like whether to fetch submodules or not, whether to git-crypt decrypt, etc, all of which would also be nice to configure in
flake.nix
.fetchTree
remains unaware of flake-ness.