warning: installing Nix as root is not supported by this script!
performing a single-user installation of Nix...
copying Nix to /nix/store.......................................................
......
warning: the group 'nixbld' specified in 'build-users-group' does not exist
warning: the group 'nixbld' specified in 'build-users-group' does not exist
installing 'nix-2.28.3'
error: the group 'nixbld' specified in 'build-users-group' does not exist
/tmp/nix-binary-tarball-unpack.2j3lCU0A89/unpack/nix-2.28.3-x86_64-linux/install: unable to install Nix into your default profile
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
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.
This is supposed to firstly improve the docs as they are, and secondly
hint at how the core conceptual information ought to be moved to the
store derivation section of the manual.
Co-authored-by: Jörg Thalheim <Mic92@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
"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>
nix-env can read priorities from a derivations meta attributes, but this
only works when installing a nix expression.
nix-env can also install bare store paths, however meta attributes are
not readable in that case. This means that a store path can not be
installed with a specific priority.
Some cases where it is advantageous to install a store path: a remote
host following a `nix copy`, or any time you want to save some
evaluation time and happen to already know the store path.
This PR addresses this shortcoming by adding a --priority flag to
nix-env --install.
The current instructions for building the Nix manual include a command that doesn't work as described. Specifically:
```
nix build .#nix^doc
```
Running this command results in the error:
```
error: derivation '/nix/store/hddqxzfqgx2fhj8q66ss3idym7pk7aj1-nix-2.26.0pre20250107_383ab87.drv' does not have wanted outputs 'doc'
```
However, this command works if you specify the Nix version explicitly, such as:
```
nix build nix/2.24.11#nix^doc
```
Additionally, these commands are run within the Nix root directory.
However, the nix build .#nix^doc command does work when run from the nixpkgs directory and generates the NixOS manual.
I'm not sure if I'm missing something. Is the `nix^doc` supposed to be added somehow to flake outputs?
The incremental build section does not work since as make has been decommissioned in favor of Meson. Should this be simply deleted?
