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.
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.
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
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
