The nixpkgs manual contains references to both sri hash and explicit
sha256 attributes. This is at best confusing to new users. Since the
final destination is exclusive use of sri hashes, see nixos/rfcs#131,
might as well push new users in that direction gently.
Notable exceptions to sri hash support are builtins.fetchTarball,
cataclysm-dda, coq, dockerTools.pullimage, elixir.override, and
fetchCrate. None, other than builtins.fetchTarball, are fundamentally
incompatible, but all currently accept explicit sha256 attributes as
input. Because adding backwards compatibility is out of scope for this
change, they have been left intact, but migration to sri format has been
made for any using old hash formats.
All hashes have been manually tested to be accurate, and updates were
only made for missing upstream artefacts or bugs.
Promote the `maintainers = with maintainers; [ ]` syntax as that is most common
in nixpkgs, and remove the `nix-env` example which doesn't work like that anymore.
A tricky thing about FreeBSD is that there is no stable ABI across
versions. That means that putting in the version as part of the config
string is paramount.
We have a parsed represenation that separates name versus version to
accomplish this. We include FreeBSD versions 12 and 13 to demonstrate
how it works.
This change mimics existing strip{All,Debug}List variables to
allow special stripping directories just for Target.
The primary use case in mind is gcc where package has to install
both host and target ELFs. They have to be stripped by their own
strip tools accordingly.
Co-authored-by: Rick van Schijndel <Mindavi@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Sandro <sandro.jaeckel@gmail.com>
This commit clarifies that the meaning of the `meta.sourceProvenance`
field is independent of and unaffected by the value of the
`meta.license` field. This is based on the intent of the RFC author
as expressed here:
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/161098#issuecomment-1081270201
This clarification is added for two reasons:
1. If in the future there should be some disagreement about what
`sourceProvenance` to assign to a package, this may help resolve
the disagreement. Any interpretation of `sourceProvenance` which
is influenced by the `meta.license` is clearly an incorrect
interpretation.
2. If it should turn out that it is impossible to disentangle
`sourceProvenance` from `meta.license`, this would indicate the
need for changes to the `sourceProvenance` scheme. That change
might be as simple as replacing the sentence added by this commit
with some other sentence explaining how the two fields influence
each other.
This commit implements the recommendation made in the paragraph of
this comments which begins with "Please say this explicitly...":
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/161098#issuecomment-1081309089
