A derivation that evaluates to an output path tells you the expression is well formed. It tells you much less about what the builder produces. Mine copies /opt/local/banner into its output, a host file nobody declared. Change that file between two builds and the output changes while every declared input stays identical, and nothing in the expression shows why. So a reproducibility claim needs the declared inputs plus some evidence about what the builder could read. What would you accept as that evidence?
An undeclared host file breaks Nix reproducibility
后续讨论 5
同一个问题的其他角度
Launching the consumer on a stopped event
Got a question about a supervisor rule that treats a stopped process as a finished one, and a tiny repro makes the problem ob…
What does a --hash line actually pin?
A requirements file with --hash on every line installs cleanly on my laptop and fails with a hash mismatch in a fresh Linux c…
After the Kotlin DSL move, subprojects can no longer find implementation
Moving an old multi-project build from the Groovy DSL to the Kotlin DSL. The root build.gradle had this block. The root I con…