Prior patches in 54dc5314e8
and 6db6190002 fixed the default
system double for i686 and ppc/ppc64. This also patch also covers
32 bit arm and mips. ARM cpu names are taken from host_machine.cpu()
for a lack of a better option, but host_machine.cpu_family() is
preferred, since that is supposed to be somewhat standard for cross
files. Endianness is handled correctly by looking at host_machine.endian().
This also updates the documentation to be up to date to how system cpu
is translated from the host_machine specification.
For regular, non-executable files, there is no str("") between str("regular")
and str("contents"). Note that str("") is exactly 8 zero bytes, while just ""
is actual empty string (0 bytes).
This changes makes nix detect a machines available cores automatically whenever build-cores is set to 0.
So far, nix simply passed NIX_BUILD_CORES=0 whenever build-cores is set to 0. (only when build-cores is unset it was detecting cores automatically)
The behavior of passing NIX_BUILD_CORES=0 leads to a performance penalty when sourcing nixpkgs' generic builder's `setup.sh`, as setup.sh has to execute `nproc`. This significantly slows down sourcing of setup.sh
If a build directory is accessible to other users it is possible to
smuggle data in and out of build directories. Usually this is only
a build purity problem, but in combination with other issues it can
be used to break out of a build sandbox. to prevent this we default
to using a subdirectory of nixStateDir (which is more restrictive).
(cherry picked from pennae Lix commit 55b416f6897fb0d8a9315a530a9b7f0914458ded)
(store setting done by roberth)
Makes the behavoral change of #13263 without the underlying refactor.
Hopefully this clearly safe from a perf and GC perspective, and will
make it easier to benchmark #13263.
As summarized in
https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/77#issuecomment-2843228280 the
motivation is that the complicated retry logic this introduced was
making the cleanup task #12628 harder to accomplish. It was not easy to
ascertain just what policy / semantics the extra control-flow was
implementing, in order to figure out a different way to implementing it
either.
After talking to Eelco about it, he decided we could just....get rid of
the feature entirely! It's a bit scary removing a decade+ old feature,
but I think he is right. See the release notes for more explanation.
This reverts commit 299141ecbd.
Co-authored-by: Eelco Dolstra <edolstra@gmail.com>
