I saw in that thread that you raised the same points that I have
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/10851#issuecomment-157808356
But I didn't understand what the resolution was. I didn't see your
comment addressed.
Since you seem to understand what is going on, maybe you can explain how
users are supposed to locally override their linux kernel derivations?
I mean, at least the following has to be wrong:
linux = self.linuxPackages.kernel;
As written this is saying that linux is the kernel from the unoverriden
linuxPackages and if you have overriden linuxPackages with your own, tough
luck because we won't automatically update the definition of linux to be
consistent with your override.
How can that possibly be useful? Everytime one overrides linuxPackages
one must also remember to override linux. It makes no sense. If one used
linux = linuxPackages.kernel;
then linux and linuxPackages will always be consistent with each other.
On Sun, 8 May 2016, Ericson, John wrote:
Nicolas intentionally kept `self` for such aliases as these. See the security
updates PR (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/10851) for the reasons why.
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:44 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
I haven't heard back from Nicolas yet.
Perhaps I should put together a PR that removes the instances of self
that I think are wrong so that we can discuss the issue.
On Sun, 8 May 2016, Daniel Peebles wrote:
Did you figure this out? I'm curious whether something got messed
up in the recent changes.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:23 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Something seems wrong / bizzare with the recursion in
all-packages.nix
I've been trying to override linux_4_4 in my
configuration.nix with the
following:
nixpkgs.config.packageOverrides = super:
{ linux_4_4 = super.linux_4_4.override { extraConfig =
"CHROME_PLATFORMS y";
kernelPatches = [ { name
= "f10_sysrq"; patch = ./f10_sysrq.patch; } ]; };
};
but this no longer works. I've spent a few hours studying
the issue.
If I do the following chain of overrides upto the
linuxPackages
attribute
nixpkgs.config.packageOverrides = super: rec
{ linux_4_4 = super.linux_4_4.override { extraConfig =
"CHROME_PLATFORMS y";
kernelPatches = [ { name
= "f10_sysrq"; patch = ./f10_sysrq.patch; } ]; };
linuxPackages_4_4 = super.recurseIntoAttrs
(super.linuxPackagesFor
linux_4_4 linuxPackages_4_4);
linuxPackages = linuxPackages_4_4;
linux = linuxPackages.kernel;
};
then it does work.
I couldn't for the life of me understand why copying what is
essentially
the exact definitions of linuxPackages_4_4 and linuxPackages
into my
packageOverrides caused it to work. The whole point of the
packageOverride mechanism is to invoke late-binding so that I
don't have
to override long chains.
I traced the issue to the following strange set of
definitions:
all-packages.nix begins with something like this
{ ... }:
self: pkgs:
with pkgs;
{ ... }
It is a function of three arguments, (1) a set of parameters,
(2) a
binding for self, (3) a binding for pkgs, and the with pkgs;
bring all
the definitions from pkgs into scope.
This is called from top-level/default.nix with the following
expression:
allPackages = self: super:
let res = import ./all-packages.nix allPackagesArgs
res self;
in res;
So allPackageArgs contains the parameters, self gets bound to
res, and
pkgs get bound to self.
The upshot of this is that within all-packages.nix self
(which is bound
to res) is the result of only evaluating all-packanges *with
no
overrides* while pkgs (which is bound to self) ends up
late-bound and is
the set of packges *with all overrides*
So when linux and linuxPackages get bound using self in
all-packages:
# The current default kernel / kernel modules.
linuxPackages = self.linuxPackages_4_4;
linux = self.linuxPackages.kernel;
The use of self here (and throughout the linuxPackage
definitions) means
that we are making reference to the *unoverridden package
set*. This is
why my packageOverrides of linux_4_4 did nothing, because the
references
to linux_4_4 inn all-packages.nix are prefixed with "self."
which means
it always gets the unoverriden packages.
Is this really the desired behaviour? I think that
all-packages.nix is
full of many questionable uses of the "self." prefix. I
suspect that
people don't really understand that "self." means "give me the
unoverriden version of packages". I think renaming "self" in
all-packages.nix to "unoverridenPackages" would be a better
name.
--
Russell O'Connor
<http://r6.ca/>
``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the
American Graphophone
Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no
property in
ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by
statute.''
_______________________________________________
nix-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
--
Russell O'Connor <http://r6.ca/>
``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American
Graphophone
Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in
ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.''
_______________________________________________
nix-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
--
Russell O'Connor <http://r6.ca/>
``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone
Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in
ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.''
_______________________________________________
nix-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
