| 2 Dec 2025 |
 0x4fbb09 it/its ⛯✇ΘΔ | what, so build (and ignore the hash) then --rebuild?
yeah that works, but it's double the work if it didn't exist | 20:09:13 |
 aloisw | Ah, so you want more a targeted --option substitute false than more convenient --rebuild? | 20:11:05 |
| 0x4fbb09 it/its ⛯✇ΘΔ | i basically want "give me an output directory that was built on this device right now", yeah | 20:12:03 |
| 0x4fbb09 it/its ⛯✇ΘΔ | so "don't give me what's in the nix store if it's in there already, don't fetch it from caches" | 20:12:20 |
 K900 | I feel like --check should even build twice by default | 20:12:27 |
| K900 | And --rebuild should build or rebuild, yeah | 20:12:34 |
| 0x4fbb09 it/its ⛯✇ΘΔ | there's a cppnix flag to let you specify a number of times to build + rebuild iirc | 20:12:48 |
| 0x4fbb09 it/its ⛯✇ΘΔ | not in lix tho | 20:12:51 |
| aloisw | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
And --rebuild should build or rebuild, yeah IIRC they are the same, just inconsistently named. | 20:13:37 |
| 0x4fbb09 it/its ⛯✇ΘΔ | yeah | 20:13:43 |
| 0x4fbb09 it/its ⛯✇ΘΔ | one's nix build and one's nix-build | 20:13:50 |
| K900 | Yes but they should be consistently named and also do different things | 20:14:02 |
| 0x4fbb09 it/its ⛯✇ΘΔ | https://nix.dev/manual/nix/2.28/release-notes/rl-1.11.html?highlight=--option%20build-repeat | 20:15:02 |
| 0x4fbb09 it/its ⛯✇ΘΔ | okay so build-repeat N is moreso for hydra | 20:15:41 |
| aloisw | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
Yes but they should be consistently named and also do different things What different things? Basically I see 3 possibilities: rebuild or fail (current behaviour, probably garbage), always do a local build (522's suggestion, makes sense but both names are shit for that), and ensure a rebuild (potentially substituting or building before if it didn't exist). | 20:20:41 |
| K900 | --rebuild - ignore existing paths and substitutes, do a clean build, even if not currently in the store
--check - do two clean builds, diff them, keep both outpaths if different | 20:23:30 |
| K900 | * | 20:24:27 |
| aloisw | Yeah I think --rebuild is a garbage name for that. | 20:25:21 |
| K900 | I think it's suboptimal but overall whatever it's fine | 20:26:00 |
| aloisw | I guess there would also be a fourth option of ensuring it has been built locally at least once, but not sure how useful that is. | 20:29:14 |
| 0x4fbb09 it/its ⛯✇ΘΔ | another way to look at it is have flags for "don't look in the nix store for the direct derivation being built" and "which substitutors should we use for the direct derivation?"
(which would also let you easily ask if 2 caches agree on the output of a given .drv without needing to implement fetching code yourself, if that's useful) | 20:29:52 |
 raitobezarius | i didn't see it but | 22:09:56 |
| raitobezarius | https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/issues/485 | 22:10:20 |
| raitobezarius | it's part of 2.95 milestone | 22:10:26 |
| raitobezarius | that is, --rebuild/--check will automatically produce the first derivation from now on and perform the check right after | 22:10:41 |
| raitobezarius | (this is independent from the naming discussions on which I think I agree) | 22:11:31 |
| raitobezarius | interesting | 22:12:37 |
| raitobezarius | i feel like we don't have an issue for it | 22:12:42 |
| raitobezarius | i feel like the generalized flag for this idea one that uses the deriver concept | 22:14:28 |
| raitobezarius | nix-build --requires-deriver local or something | 22:14:41 |
