Build with nixpkgs scope #10963
Build with nixpkgs scope #10963
Conversation
roberth
force-pushed
the
build-with-nixpkgs-scope
branch
from
b49951f
to
15b1c74
Compare
github-actions
bot
added
fetching
roberth
force-pushed
the
build-with-nixpkgs-scope
branch
from
2f225ef
to
f1f9f7c
Compare
| # Technically we could just return `pkgs.nixComponents`, but for Hydra it's | ||
| # convention to transpose it, and to transpose it efficiently, we need to | ||
| # enumerate them manually, so that we don't evaluate unnecessary package sets. | ||
| forAllPackages = lib.genAttrs [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Future work: Let's us builtins.attrNames for this list
maintainers/hydra.nix
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should move this file to packaging actually. We have a lit of nix files scattered around willy-nilly right now as no directory felt right.
... which aren't around anymore.
This avoids polluting nixComponents with things that aren't our components. Fixes the extraction of passthru tests, which failed for boehmgc which had many irrelevant ones anyway.
roberth
force-pushed
the
build-with-nixpkgs-scope
branch
from
f1f9f7c
to
25dc12a
Compare
flake.nix
Outdated
| nix-internal-api-docs = final.callPackage ./src/internal-api-docs/package.nix { | ||
| inherit | ||
| fileset | ||
| stdenv | ||
| versionSuffix | ||
| ; | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| nix-external-api-docs = final.callPackage ./src/external-api-docs/package.nix { | ||
| inherit | ||
| fileset | ||
| stdenv | ||
| versionSuffix | ||
| ; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would put these in nixComponents too. They only weren't in the list that became them because (as @edolstra reminded us) we didn't want to cross compile them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, we're not using attrNames nixComponents anyway, so it's actually fine.
Early on in the commit series it would have been suitable for that, but makeScope adds some stuff that'd need to be filtered out, which I think is the right trade-off.
flake.nix
Outdated
| # in Nixpkgs top level `pkgs` or `nixComponents`. | ||
| nixDependencies = lib.makeScope final.newScope (scope: { | ||
| inherit stdenv versionSuffix; | ||
| libseccomp = final.libseccomp_nix; | ||
| boehmgc = final.boehmgc_nix; | ||
| libgit2 = final.libgit2_nix; | ||
| busybox-sandbox-shell = final.busybox-sandbox-shell or final.default-busybox-sandbox-shell; | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would put out the these deps in packaging/<some-file>.nix. too. Instead of overriding prev/super, they would be overriding the regular scope. (Actually the package set function is the same, up to alpha equivalence, but the caller is different.)
The _nix suffix is just poor mans scoping anyways.
Agreed with using self.callPackage of course
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done:
- Inline the
_nixdefinitions (ie they're not in the overlay anymore), - Move the scope function into a separate file, passing the free variables by attrset
- Rename
finaltopkgs.
|
I'm more a fan of transposing the "system" attribute so that it "comes first in the attribute paths you actually think with", or more concretely you only bring it into scope like once, instead of a |
Motivation
Use a Nixpkgs scope instead of top level "
pkgs" attributes.This is a pattern that could be applied in Nixpkgs proper, so it brings us closer to being able to share code with Nixpkgs, which also has to implement the meson migration. (Just closer; more work needs to be done)
Context
packagesbuild matrix code #10962 but that's okay; just make that usenixComponentstoo.Priorities and Process
Add 👍 to pull requests you find important.
The Nix maintainer team uses a GitHub project board to schedule and track reviews.