Remove the 'ca-references' feature check #5247
Conversation
Fixes NixOS#3422. Fixes NixOS#4425.
edolstra
force-pushed
the
stablize-ca-references
branch
from
02f3d7b
to
761ac9d
Compare
|
Also CC @Ericson2314. |
|
I don't think CA self references should be stable yet. |
|
Based on what @regnat says in #4849 (comment), I am not even sure all the self references in all locations are implemented right, yet. |
|
Moreover, I don't see the practical benefit of doing this: most useful stuff would be still blocked by CA-derivations, but one can now add-to-store in in ways? Seems we are giving up a few degrees of design freedom for no one's benefit. |
|
Finally, I want to establish the convention that features only become stable with RFCs. Sure this is fairly trivial, but people already have misgivings about whether RFCs work, I don't want to throw fuel on the fire. |
|
We need CA references for |
|
Will In general, I'm a big fan of those built-in derivations. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what's better about that? Besides avoiding unstable features, a derivation allows downstream derivations in a nice way. That could be be useful for CI-ing a bunch of people's personal environments. Still, just making non-self-references stable is most or the benefit. Seeing a little mini-RFC for that would be great to help build confidence in the governance mechanism. |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nix-profile-install-cannot-add-path-lacks-a-valid-signature/16106/2 |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/content-addressed-nix-call-for-testers/12881/144 |
CA paths with references seem stable enough so I don't think we need to keep it behind a feature check.
Fixes #3422.
Fixes #4425.