New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
stdenv: assert whether name
or (pname
and version
) are given
#53327
Conversation
Without the assertion, when a `pname` was missing, the whole trace was error: attribute 'pname' missing, at /home/freddy/Code/libraries/nixpkgs/pkgs/stdenv/generic/make-derivation.nix:84:54 which is pretty useless if you happened to have changed a lot of expressions.
At the same time, this doesn't improve it much either since now you're presented with an assertion error instead of a reason. |
@vbgl @jwiegley about coq, could the recursing be limited to derivations that are actually possible to evaluate?
|
The assertion that you added breaks a derivation that will be pruned later (hence never evaluated): it forces the evaluation of its Can that assertion trigger only when the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This breaks evaluation of coqPackages
.
Can we use |
What’s the status of this? Is it related to that recent change: c6f8f8d? Note that you should use |
I don't think this is needed anymore. Nix shows an error if name is missing:
results in
|
Without the assertion, when a
pname
was missing, the whole trace waswhich is pretty useless if you happened to have changed a lot of
expressions.
Motivation for this change
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)