>On 08/17/2011 06:20 AM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:59:22PM +0400, Michael Raskin wrote: >>> <[email protected]>) >>> Mime-Version: 1.0 >>> Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >>> >>>>>> What would people think of a patch that made stdenv's uname return the >>>>>> same value on every linux? I've only just had the idea and haven't had >>>>>> time to think through the possible downsides, but my initial thought is >>>>>> that most packages shouldn't need to know the kernel version, and that >>>>>> those that have a reason to (e.g. packages that provide kernel modules) >>>>>> should be dependent on the kernel passed to the nix expression, rather >>>>>> than whatever the kernel happens to be in memory at a given time. Or am I >>>>>> wrong? Is there a reason a build should depend on which version of the >>>>> I guess default uname should say version of kernel from kernelheaders >>>>> used for glibc, and kernelPackages one should say the kernel version >>>>> of the passed kernel? >>>> I'd like a list of the problems this would solve. >>> General idea is to forcibly remove one more impurity. >>> >>> FF6.0 release manages to trigger it. >> Is this impurity affecting the behaviour of FF6.0? If it is, I think they are >> doing something wrong. If they care about the API, they should check the >> kernel >> headers version.h, and not uname. >> >> Or is it simply storing what kernel was it running at build time, and you >> care >> on getting always the same 'hash' on the result directory? >In the FF6.0 case, the build actually fails. While I'd like to get the >same hash on the result directory every time (I've been thinking of >starting a "stdenv-pure" branch to root out as many impurities as >possible), there are definitely noticeable changes in some packages >beyond just a hash.
Technically, it fails even without it. But in a significantly different way. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
