>> I think that any proposal would be seriously considered. Any already
>> existing application creating such a problem would increase your chances
>> to make someone else propose a solution… Otherwise — I think the problem
>> can surface, but I have no idea ho to fix it sanely… I think many other
>> people think the same.
>
>Well, let's not try to decide the undecidable. Would it be so bad to
>have explicit dependencies? That seems to be the only sound solution.
Nobody would use it… except in the cases where there is no other
solution. I think it is a nice solution.
>A straightforward way is to add a small dotfile via the builder script
>with paths to the output. The only problem at this point is that there
>is pretty much no support for doing that, so it's error-prone. I could
>totally see something like this happening:
>
> stdenv.mkDerivation {
> ...
> requisites = [cacert dataFiles1 dataFiles2];
> ...
> }
>
>All it does is to register the given derivations as requisites
>unconditionally, perhaps simply by writing the aforementioned dotfile
>at $out/.nixdeps.
I think it should be $out/nix-support/forced-runtime-deps
What do other people think?
Is it something the should be added to fixupPhase in stdenv or is it
worth adding in a slightly more complicated way without a rebuild?
(Yes, situations like this are exactly why I think composing the entire
builder in Nix has its merits)
_______________________________________________
nix-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
