Apart from the missing 'rec' to bring 'name' into scope (see travis-ci), I think this actually causes a regression :-(

For example, try adding a character to the attic fetchurl name argument (to force rebuild). Then observe:

$ nix-build -A attic.src
these derivations will be built:
  /nix/store/3p3bn08hw55zizkibpx7y9sdxwrfbymv-attic-0.16-src2.drv
building path(s) ‘/nix/store/nig234fc7nf1lz0i2bnk8rnzfqbjabm5-attic-0.16-src2’

trying https://github.com/jborg/attic/archive/0.16.tar.gz
  % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
                                 Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed
100   117    0   117    0     0    190      0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:--   208
100 87985    0 87985    0     0  51791      0 --:--:--  0:00:01 --:--:--  111k
unpacking source archive /tmp/nix-build-attic-0.16-src2.drv-0/attic-0.16-src2
do not know how to unpack source archive /tmp/nix-build-attic-0.16-src2.drv-0/attic-0.16-src2

Well, I could of course have given the package in question a name which ends in "zip", but in the case of fetchzip, the result is a directory, not a file, so having name = "foo.zip" when it really is a directory feels weird.

Ping

Ugh.

Well, then this is a question of unification. Right now, as far as I can tell, name is either given explicitly without an extension, or (in most cases) is derived from the URL, in which case it will have an extension. I’d say, the right thing to do is to add extensions to names all over nixpkgs (that’s 10 derivations, if my grep-fu is good enough).

@bjornfor ?

I have no opinion at the moment. I might re-visit later.

@kirelagin Despite this being a one line change, I am not convinced of its correctness and this has to do with the specification of the function mentioning that it needs to work for tar and zip and you only talk about zip files.

In order to move this forward, please articulate the specific problem that this will solve and how it solves this.

When there is no feedback within three months, I am going to ask someone to close this PR.

@kirelagin As @bjornfor mentioned this currently is simply wrong. So, please make a PR that actually works. PR that do not work, should be prefixed with WIP, if they are in fact a work in progress and not just abandoned.

I have literally no idea what this is about by now.

@0xABAB

In order to move this forward, please articulate the specific problem that this will solve and how it solves this.

Oh, and, by the way, I am inclined to believe that the problem is articulated rather clearly in the PR referenced in the OP.