Re: [Nix-dev] Accessing files in derivations.

On 19/04/16 18:51, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > On 04/19/2016 04:01 PM, Layus wrote: >> That operator would ensure that the path exists in the derivation, but >> also look up through the outputs to find one containing that file. > Unfortunately, during evaluation you can't access the results of builds

Re: [Nix-dev] Accessing files in derivations.

Adding attributes does not solve anything. Package maintainers still have to take NixOS modules into account. They have to provide workarounds if xxx.headers is not relevant anymore for example, and are responsible of cleaning up unused attributes. This increases coupling between NixOS and

Re: [Nix-dev] Accessing files in derivations.

On 19/04/16 18:51, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > On 04/19/2016 04:01 PM, Layus wrote: >> That operator would ensure that the path exists in the derivation, but >> also look up through the outputs to find one containing that file. > > Unfortunately, during evaluation you can't access the results of

Re: [Nix-dev] Accessing files in derivations.

On 04/19/2016 04:01 PM, Layus wrote: > That operator would ensure that the path exists in the derivation, but > also look up through the outputs to find one containing that file. Unfortunately, during evaluation you can't access the results of builds to check whether some path exists. (Well,

[Nix-dev] fhs environment with conflicting gcc

Hi guys, I'm trying to use the fhs (to compile some netbsd stuff) and I'm wondering if there is a way to resolve the conflicting gcc if I use a different version of gcc. I'm trying to use gcc48 instead of the default gcc. Any hints? Thanks, -Peter ___

[Nix-dev] Monitoring by default

Hi all, People who are not interested in reliability or monitoring can stop reading now. -- I've written up a "design doc" (statement of intent?) for how we might do monitoring-by-default. Once I think there is a reasonable level of consensus about how we should do this, I'll go ahead and

Re: [Nix-dev] Accessing files in derivations.

Funny, Aszlig just came up with the same idea yesterday. Using ${foo => bin/blah} as syntax. On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Layus wrote: > Dear NixOS users, > > For as long as NixOS exists, we have been using statements like > "${package}/some/path"; > However, nothing

[Nix-dev] Accessing files in derivations.

Dear NixOS users, For as long as NixOS exists, we have been using statements like "${package}/some/path"; However, nothing ensures that the path /some/path exists in the given package. As this works good enough in practice, there was no incentive to improve the situation. With the multiple

Re: [Nix-dev] Minimal disk image without gcc?

I have just uploaded four pull requests [1] to fix various packages. Amongst them, ldb is akin to a mass-rebuild and is probably the most used package keeping a reference to gcc. @Wout, Which packages do you have that depend on gcc ? It is quite annoying that nixpkgs requires to specify which

Re: [Nix-dev] texlive old tarballs

Nevermind, fixed on the Hydra side: https://github.com/NixOS/hydra/issues/297 On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Domen Kožar wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm wondering if someone still has the following path around: > > /nix/store/h28lfjmqvhdgf0fcq93k8jlhhalckrnz-inconsolata.tar.xz > > It's

[Nix-dev] texlive old tarballs

Hi all, I'm wondering if someone still has the following path around: /nix/store/h28lfjmqvhdgf0fcq93k8jlhhalckrnz-inconsolata.tar.xz It's a build dependency for R package. Even better, if someone installed all texlive packages that now have a new hash:

Re: [Nix-dev] Minimal disk image without gcc?

BTW, that reminds me of https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/12898 On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:50 PM Wout Mertens wrote: > Thanks, that really helps! > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:21 PM Layus wrote: > >> On 19/04/16 11:52, Wout Mertens wrote: >> >

Re: [Nix-dev] Minimal disk image without gcc?

Thanks, that really helps! On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:21 PM Layus wrote: > On 19/04/16 11:52, Wout Mertens wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to make a specialized image that just runs some tools and > > has nothing else installed. > > > > If I uset the minimal profile it

Re: [Nix-dev] Minimal disk image without gcc?

On 19/04/16 11:52, Wout Mertens wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to make a specialized image that just runs some tools and > has nothing else installed. > > If I uset the minimal profile it has stdenv, which includes 100MB of gcc. > > Pointers? I am also working on this. From my investigations, the

Re: [Nix-dev] Synchronizing a the binary cache

Hi. On 04/18/2016 09:31 PM, Evan Rowley wrote: > I am wondering if it is possible to somehow synchronize a machine with > the nix binary cache, so that on a separate network, it may service > NixOS client requests to download binaries. You probably don't want to follow *everything* that happens

Re: [Nix-dev] PolicyKit timeout after upgrade to 16.03

You should try rolling back on the instance causing problems. By that I mean rolling back on the system generation (at boot loader) not channel generation. If it still has a problem, then something imperative occurred and perhaps you can force rebuild the system (I forgot whether there's a flag