←back to thread

Nix Derivation Madness

(fzakaria.com)
184 points birdculture | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
eviks ◴[] No.45773806[source]
> nix/store/24v9wpp393ib1gllip7ic13aycbi704g-ruby-3.3.9.drv

A different type of madness, but are ugly names so common, why not start with ruby-3.3.9 so any list of files is semantically sorted/readable?

replies(6): >>45773869 #>>45774382 #>>45774390 #>>45776319 #>>45777560 #>>45778772 #
rkomorn ◴[] No.45773869[source]
The package name is "secondary" information in this context. The hash is the primary one because it's stable unless the input changes.

The semantic is "what did this configuration generate", not "what's this package's version".

replies(1): >>45773949 #
eviks ◴[] No.45773949[source]
it's primary for every human involved, also, the way you check whether it's changed is by automatically comparing that full hash, not its starting symbols, so you don't care where in the full string it's positioned

> The semantic is "what did this configuration generate", not "what's this package's version".

Then why have the name/version at all like in those nameless cache dirs?

replies(1): >>45774046 #
rkomorn ◴[] No.45774046[source]
It made sense to me when I looked at it, at mount points, at when it changed vs when it didn't, etc, so IDK what to tell you.

FWIW, I'm also pretty sure I'm human.

Edit: also, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't find it any more or less complicated if the package name came first.

replies(2): >>45774140 #>>45774807 #
jancsika ◴[] No.45774807[source]
> Edit: also, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't find it any more or less complicated if the package name came first.

rkomorn.skills.tty.tab_completion -= 1;

replies(1): >>45775651 #
1. rkomorn ◴[] No.45775651[source]
Yeah, okay. Super cool HN comment quality.