nixos/installer: Make nixos-rebuild test and dry-activate not create a symlink in the current directory #84996
Conversation
…a symlink in the current directory The section for `test`, `build`, `dry-build`, and `dry-activate` has been split into two separate cases, one for `build` and one for the rest. The handling for `build` is identical to how it was before, but the others use --no-out-link to not create a result symlink in the current directory. Note that this actually doesn't matter for `dry-build`. I've grouped `dry-build` with `test` and `dry-activate` since it shouldn't create a ./result symlink (which it doesn't do anyway)
ofborg
bot
added
6.topic: nixos
| if [[ -z $flake ]]; then | ||
| pathToConfig="$(nixBuild '<nixpkgs/nixos>' -A system -k "${extraBuildFlags[@]}")" | ||
| else | ||
| nix build "$flake#$flakeAttr.config.system.build.toplevel" "${extraBuildFlags[@]}" "${lockFlags[@]}" | ||
| pathToConfig="$(readlink -f ./result)" | ||
| fi | ||
| elif [ "$action" = test -o "$action" = dry-build -o "$action" = dry-activate ]; then | ||
| if [[ -z $flake ]]; then | ||
| pathToConfig="$(nixBuild '<nixpkgs/nixos>' --no-out-link -A system -k "${extraBuildFlags[@]}")" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't it be easier to just add --no-out-link to extraBuildFlags?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem is that the flake-specific part is structured differently in the build and the test cases. The nix-command equivalent to --no-out-link seems to be called --no-link, but the code that's already there (L418-421) didn't use it and I assumed that maybe there's a reason why.
|
Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions. Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human. If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do: If you received an approval by an unprivileged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list. If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past. If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments. Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel. |
stale
bot
added
the
2.status: stale
SuperSandro2000
added
the
2.status: merge conflict
stale
bot
removed
the
2.status: stale
|
I marked this as stale due to inactivity. → More info |
stale
bot
added
the
2.status: stale
|
|
Motivation for this change
Before this commit,
nixos-rebuild testanddry-activatewould create a./resultsymlink in the current directory. This commit makes them not do that. See #12665, specifically this comment. There's some more information in the commit message.Things done
Note: I have not been able to test the flake-specific code. I've also had to comment out line 256 to 262 to prevent
nixos-rebuildfromexecing the "broken" version of itself.sandboxinnix.confon non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"./result/bin/)nix path-info -Sbefore and after)