> On Jun 14, 2014, at 13:29, Ertugrul Söylemez <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:36:21 -0400 > Shea Levy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Please point to a specific example of a package with an unretained >> dependency due to UTF-16 storage > > I can't. I'm just pointing out a potential problem here. If you > disagree, I'll be happy to construct a proof of concept. >
Of course it could happen, but we have a huge number of packages in nixpkgs, including a significant subset of hackage, and it hasn't actually happened yet as far as anyone knows. No one claims hash scanning/hash rewriting is 100% sound. It is, however, extremely convenient and has worked remarkably well up until now. If we start finding real world use cases where it fails, then we can start thinking about alternatives, but until then why is this a big deal? > > Greets, > Ertugrul > > -- > Ertugrul Söylemez <[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
