For example, instead of doing
#include "nix/store-config.hh"
#include "nix/derived-path.hh"
Now do
#include "nix/store/config.hh"
#include "nix/store/derived-path.hh"
This was originally planned in the issue, and also recent requested by
Eelco.
Most of the change is purely mechanical. There is just one small
additional issue. See how, in the example above, we took this
opportunity to also turn `<comp>-config.hh` into `<comp>/config.hh`.
Well, there was already a `nix/util/config.{cc,hh}`. Even though there
is not a public configuration header for libutil (which also would be
called `nix/util/config.{cc,hh}`) that's still confusing, To avoid any
such confusion, we renamed that to `nix/util/configuration.{cc,hh}`.
Finally, note that the libflake headers already did this, so we didn't
need to do anything to them. We wouldn't want to mistakenly get
`nix/flake/flake/flake.hh`!
Progress on #7876
(cherry picked from commit cc24766fa6)
The short answer for why we need to do this is so we can consistently do
`#include "nix/..."`. Without this change, there are ways to still make
that work, but they are hacky, and they have downsides such as making it
harder to make sure headers from the wrong Nix library (e..g.
`libnixexpr` headers in `libnixutil`) aren't being used.
The C API alraedy used `nix_api_*`, so its headers are *not* put in
subdirectories accordingly.
Progress on #7876
We resisted doing this for a while because it would be annoying to not
have the header source file pairs close by / easy to change file
path/name from one to the other. But I am ameliorating that with
symlinks in the next commit.
(cherry picked from commit f3e1c47f47)
This does not yet resolve the coupling between packages and
derivations, but it makes the code more consistent with the
terminology, and it accentuates places where the coupling is
obvious, such as
auto drvPath = packageInfo.queryDrvPath();
if (!drvPath)
throw Error("'%s' is not a derivation", what());
... which isn't wrong, and in my opinion, doesn't even look
wrong, because it just reflects the current logic.
However, I do like that we can now start to see in the code that
this coupling is perhaps a bit arbitrary.
After this rename, we can bring the DerivingPath concept into type
and start to lift this limitation.
