sometimes it's these little things that let beginners stumble at the
first step...
mentioning one potentially foreign concept while introducing an entirely
new concept is asking enough already.
Nix shipping with Yet Another Programming Language is often questioned
among beginners. This change highlights distinctive aspects of the Nix
language to ease the learning curve and better orient readers around
what really matters for using Nix.
Since it's on topic, this change also polishes the wording on the motivation for string contexts.
This change follows the definition from aptitude, but using precise notions from Nix:
> package managers deal with packages: collections of files that are
> bundled together and can be installed and removed as a group.
> [...]
> If a package A depends upon another package B, then B is required
> for A to operate properly.
> [...]
> The job of a package manager is to present an interface which assists
> the user in managing the collection of packages installed on his or her system.
>
> -- <https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/aptitude/pr01s02.en.html>
An interesting addition:
> Packages are abstractions defining the granularity at which users can act
> (add, remove, upgrade, etc.) on available software.
> A distribution is a collection of packages maintained (hopefully) coherently.
>
> -- Package Upgrades in FOSS Distributions: Details and Challenges
> (Roberto Di Cosmo, Stefano Zacchiroli; 2009) <https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.1610>
Notably these quotes and this change don't say anything about installation,
or what it means for software to be available. In practice, this is
handled downstream, e.g. in NixOS or Home Manager. Nix historically
provides rudimentary facilities for package management such as
`nix-env`, but I claim they are widely agreed upon being discouraged,
with plenty of arguments provided in <https://stop-using-nix-env.privatevoid.net>.
Similarly, the specific structure of packages is determined downstream,
since Nix is policy-free:
> Nix is policy-free; it provides mechanisms to implement various deployment policies, but does not enforce a specific one.
>
> -- The Purely Functional Software Deployment Model (Eelco Dolstra; 2006) <https://edolstra.github.io/pubs/phd-thesis.pdf>
Specifically, Nix mechanisms do not define what a package is supposed to be:
> It's worth noting that the Nix language is intended as a DSL for package and configuration management, but it has no notions of "packages" or "configurations".
>
> -- <https://gist.github.com/edolstra/29ce9d8ea399b703a7023073b0dbc00d>
This is why we say, Nix *allows* denoting packages in a certain way, but
doesn't enforce any particular way.
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)
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
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)
1. Fix confusing wording that might imply unnecessary double-hashing.
2. Add references to specifics of base-32 encoding.
3. Fix incorrect description that sha256 hash of `fingerprint` is
truncated. "Truncated" is actual wording used in Nix theses, but it has
unusual meaning, that is better conveyed by word "compressed", which is
used by the reference C++ implementation.
4. Clarify details of base16 encoding.
(cherry picked from commit a0facb2aba)
