Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

bazel: bash needs to be in buildInputs #32616

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

bazel: bash needs to be in buildInputs #32616

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

TravisWhitaker
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation for this change

The bash used in customBash will be called by the resulting bazel, so bash needs to be in buildInputs.

I'll note that I've only been able to successfully build bazel in the sandbox.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option build-use-sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@orivej
Copy link
Contributor

orivej commented Dec 16, 2017

What happens without this PR?

@TravisWhitaker
Copy link
Contributor Author

With a clean Nix store, the bazel binary will fail because the bash passed into this derivation isn't present.

@orivej
Copy link
Contributor

orivej commented Dec 16, 2017

This is not how Nix works: the reference to ${bash}/bin/bash in customBash will ensure that the necessary bash will be brought into the store together with bazel, regardless of its presence in buildInputs. You can check this with nix-store -qR $(which bazel). If this PR solves some issue for you, please describe it.

@TravisWhitaker
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ah, it turns out c69d90b actually fixes the issue I was having, and I must've stomped on that change when merging into my fork somehow. Sorry for the mistake.

And I misspoke before, it's not that ${bash}/bin/bash won't be present, but without c69d90b, ${customBash} is missing from the output's runtime closure.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
10.rebuild-darwin: 0 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@TravisWhitaker @orivej @GrahamcOfBorg