* add generic x86_32 support
- Add support for i386-i586.
- Add `isx86_32` predicate that can replace most uses of `isi686`.
- `isi686` is reinterpreted to mean "exactly i686 arch, and not say i585 or i386".
- This branch was used to build working i586 kernel running on i586 hardware.
* revert `isi[345]86`, remove dead code
- Remove changes to dead code in `doubles.nix` and `for-meta.nix`.
- Remove `isi[345]86` predicates since other cpu families don't have specific model predicates.
* remove i386-linux since linux not supported on that cpu
Intuitively, one cares mainly about the host platform: Platforms differ
in meaningful ways but compilation is morally a pure process and
probably doesn't care, or those difference are already abstracted away.
@Dezgeg also empirically confirmed that > 95% of checks are indeed of
the host platform.
Yet these attributes in the old cross infrastructure were defined to be
the build platform, for expediency. And this was never before changed.
(For native builds build and host coincide, so it isn't clear what the
intention was.)
Fixing this doesn't affect native builds, since again they coincide. It
also doesn't affect cross builds of anything in Nixpkgs, as these are no
longer used. It could affect external cross builds, but I deem that
unlikely as anyone thinking about cross would use more explicit
attributes for clarity, all the more so because the rarity of inspecting
the build platform.
This has been not touched in 6 years. Let's remove it to cause less
problems when adding new cross-compiling infrastructure.
This also simplify gcc significantly.
I *want* cross-specific overrides to be verbose, so I rather not have
this shorthand. This makes the syntactic overhead more proportional to
the maintainence cost. Hopefully this pushes people towards fewer
conditionals and more abstractions.
We want `buildPackages` to be almost the same as
`buildPackages.buildPackges`, but that is only true if most packages
don't care about the target platform. The commented code however made
them all care about whether the target platform was Darwin.
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
(cherry picked from commit ba52ae5048)
This requires some small changes in the stdenv, then working around the
weird choice LLVM made to hardcode @rpath in its install name, and then
lets us remove a ton of annoying workaround hacks in many of our Go
packages. With any luck this will mean less hackery going forward.
This reverts commit eeabf85780.
This change suddenly makes tons of stdenv internals visible in
nativeBuildInputs of every derivation, which doesn't seem desirable.
E.g:
````
nix-repl> hello.nativeBuildInputs
[ «derivation /nix/store/bcfkyf6bhssxd2vzwgzmsbn7b5b9rpxc-patchelf-0.9.drv»
«derivation /nix/store/4wnshnz9wwanpfzcrdd76rri7pyqn9sk-paxctl-0.9.drv»
<< snip 10+ lines >>
«derivation /nix/store/d35pgh1lcg5nm0x28d899pxj30b8c9b2-gcc-wrapper-6.4.0.drv»
]
````
Additionally, instead of pulling them from `setup.sh`, route them via
Nix. This gets us one step closer to making stdenv be a plain attribute
set instead of a derivation.
Only cosmetic changes are done otherwise.
Real refactoring is left for later.
There's a small slow-down on my machine:
$ time nix-env -qa -P >/dev/null
gets from ~2.8 to ~3.5 seconds (negligible change in RAM).
That's most likely caused by sharing less computation between different
mkDerivation calls, and I plan to improve that soon.
This is a bit simpler now, but more importantly it scales better when I
double the number of sorts of dependencies as part of my cross
compilation work.
This is especially useful when not cross compiling. It means we can
remove the `stdenv.isGlibc` predicate too.
Additionally, use this to simplify the logic to choose the
appropriate libiconv derivation.
When not cross compiling, nativeBuildInputs and buildInputs have
identical behaviour. Currently that is implemented by having
mkDerivation do a concatenation of those variables in Nix code and pass
that to the builder via the nativeBuildInputs attribute.
However, that has some annoying side effects, like `foo.buildInputs`
evaluating to `[ ]` even if buildInputs were specified in the nix
expression for foo.
Instead, pass buildInputs and nativeBuildInputs in separate variables as
usual, and move the logic of cross compilation vs. native compilation to
the stdenv builder script. This is probably a tiny bit uglier but
fixes the previous problem.
Issue #4855.
If a package's meta has `knownVulnerabilities`, like so:
stdenv.mkDerivation {
name = "foobar-1.2.3";
...
meta.knownVulnerabilities = [
"CVE-0000-00000: remote code execution"
"CVE-0000-00001: local privilege escalation"
];
}
and a user attempts to install the package, they will be greeted with
a warning indicating that maybe they don't want to install it:
error: Package ‘foobar-1.2.3’ in ‘...default.nix:20’ is marked as insecure, refusing to evaluate.
Known issues:
- CVE-0000-00000: remote code execution
- CVE-0000-00001: local privilege escalation
You can install it anyway by whitelisting this package, using the
following methods:
a) for `nixos-rebuild` you can add ‘foobar-1.2.3’ to
`nixpkgs.config.permittedInsecurePackages` in the configuration.nix,
like so:
{
nixpkgs.config.permittedInsecurePackages = [
"foobar-1.2.3"
];
}
b) For `nix-env`, `nix-build`, `nix-shell` or any other Nix command you can add
‘foobar-1.2.3’ to `permittedInsecurePackages` in
~/.config/nixpkgs/config.nix, like so:
{
permittedInsecurePackages = [
"foobar-1.2.3"
];
}
Adding either of these configurations will permit this specific
version to be installed. A third option also exists:
NIXPKGS_ALLOW_INSECURE=1 nix-build ...
though I specifically avoided having a global file-based toggle to
disable this check. This way, users don't disable it once in order to
get a single package, and then don't realize future packages are
insecure.
If a package's meta has `knownVulnerabilities`, like so:
stdenv.mkDerivation {
name = "foobar-1.2.3";
...
meta.knownVulnerabilities = [
"CVE-0000-00000: remote code execution"
"CVE-0000-00001: local privilege escalation"
];
}
and a user attempts to install the package, they will be greeted with
a warning indicating that maybe they don't want to install it:
error: Package ‘foobar-1.2.3’ in ‘...default.nix:20’ is marked as insecure, refusing to evaluate.
Known issues:
- CVE-0000-00000: remote code execution
- CVE-0000-00001: local privilege escalation
You can install it anyway by whitelisting this package, using the
following methods:
a) for `nixos-rebuild` you can add ‘foobar-1.2.3’ to
`nixpkgs.config.permittedInsecurePackages` in the configuration.nix,
like so:
{
nixpkgs.config.permittedInsecurePackages = [
"foobar-1.2.3"
];
}
b) For `nix-env`, `nix-build`, `nix-shell` or any other Nix command you can add
‘foobar-1.2.3’ to `permittedInsecurePackages` in
~/.config/nixpkgs/config.nix, like so:
{
permittedInsecurePackages = [
"foobar-1.2.3"
];
}
Adding either of these configurations will permit this specific
version to be installed. A third option also exists:
NIXPKGS_ALLOW_INSECURE=1 nix-build ...
though I specifically avoided having a global file-based toggle to
disable this check. This way, users don't disable it once in order to
get a single package, and then don't realize future packages are
insecure.
[N.B., this package also applies to the commits that follow it in the same
PR.]
In most cases, buildPackages = pkgs so things work just as before. For
cross compiling, however, buildPackages is resolved as the previous
bootstrapping stage. This allows us to avoid the mkDerivation hacks cross
compiling currently uses today.
To avoid a massive refactor, callPackage will splice together both package
sets. Again to avoid churn, it uses the old `nativeDrv` vs `crossDrv` to do
so. So now, whether cross compiling or not, packages with get a `nativeDrv`
and `crossDrv`---in the non-cross-compiling case they are simply the same
derivation. This is good because it reduces the divergence between the
cross and non-cross dataflow. See `pkgs/top-level/splice.nix` for a comment
along the lines of the preceding paragraph, and the code that does this
splicing.
Also, `forceNativeDrv` is replaced with `forceNativePackages`. The latter
resolves `pkgs` unless the host platform is different from the build
platform, in which case it resolves to `buildPackages`. Note that the
target platform is not important here---it will not prevent
`forcedNativePackages` from resolving to `pkgs`.
--------
Temporarily, we make preserve some dubious decisions in the name of preserving
hashes:
Most importantly, we don't distinguish between "host" and "target" in the
autoconf sense. This leads to the proliferation of *Cross derivations
currently used. What we ought to is resolve native deps of the cross "build
packages" (build = host != target) package set against the "vanilla
packages" (build = host = target) package set. Instead, "build packages"
uses itself, with (informally) target != build in all cases.
This is wrong because it violates the "sliding window" principle of
bootstrapping stages that shifting the platform triple of one stage to the
left coincides with the next stage's platform triple. Only because we don't
explicitly distinguish between "host" and "target" does it appear that the
"sliding window" principle is preserved--indeed it is over the reductionary
"platform double" of just "build" and "host/target".
Additionally, we build libc, libgcc, etc in the same stage as the compilers
themselves, which is wrong because they are used at runtime, not build
time. Fixing this is somewhat subtle, and the solution and problem will be
better explained in the commit that does fix it.
Commits after this will solve both these issues, at the expense of breaking
cross hashes. Native hashes won't be broken, thankfully.
--------
Did the temporary ugliness pan out? Of the packages that currently build in
`release-cross.nix`, the only ones that have their hash changed are
`*.gcc.crossDrv` and `bootstrapTools.*.coreutilsMinimal`. In both cases I
think it doesn't matter.
1. GCC when doing a `build = host = target = foreign` build (maximally
cross), still defines environment variables like `CPATH`[1] with
packages. This seems assuredly wrong because whether gcc dynamically
links those, or the programs built by gcc dynamically link those---I
have no idea which case is reality---they should be foreign. Therefore,
in all likelihood, I just made the gcc less broken.
2. Coreutils (ab)used the old cross-compiling infrastructure to depend on
a native version of itself. When coreutils was overwritten to be built
with fewer features, the native version it used would also be
overwritten because the binding was tight. Now it uses the much looser
`BuildPackages.coreutils` which is just fine as a richer build dep
doesn't cause any problems and avoids a rebuild.
So, in conclusion I'd say the conservatism payed off. Onward to actually
raking the muck in the next PR!
[1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Environment-Variables.html
