The "derivation" is one of the key concepts and captures the most distinctive aspect of Nix:
that we work with a certain type data (linked files) in a certain manner (using pure functions).
Here we finally arrange all the important pieces to show how they belong
together, while referring to the respective reference documentation for details.
This change also unbreaks downstream links to `//glossary#gloss-derivation`,
which had been broken by removing the glossary entry
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.
"content-address*ed*" derivation is misleading because all derivations
are *themselves* content-addressed. What may or may not be
content-addressed is not derivation itself, but the *output* of the
derivation.
The outputs are not *part* of the derivation (for then the derivation
wouldn't be complete before we built it) but rather separate entities
produced by the derivation.
"content-adddress*ed*" is not correctly because it can only describe
what the derivation *is*, and that is not what we are trying to do.
"content-address*ing*" is correct because it describes what the
derivation *does* --- it produces content-addressed data.
This is a big step documenting the store layer on its own, separately from the evaluator (and `builtins.derivation`).
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
