jgart <jg...@dismail.de> writes:
>> It is a Scheme representation of a derivation, which also has an on-disk >> representation. > > Why was the scheme representation of a derivation needed? You can search the “guix” directory in the source tree for “derivation-” to see the many ways that we’re accessing parts of the Scheme representation of derivation files. We’re accessing the expected output location, the list of inputs, we using its fields to build narinfos, etc. The only alternative is to hit the disk every time we want to know something about a derivation and parse the file repeatedly. That would be very unwise. >> Everything that the daemon is asked to build must be compiled to a >> derivation on disk first. From the perspective of the daemon there are >> no first-class packages, only derivations. Much of what Guix as a >> library does is to turn package values into derivation files and >> builders to feed them into the daemon. > > Why are the bags needed? What do the bags solve in the system? The manual says: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Under the hood, build systems first compile package objects to “bags”. A “bag” is like a package, but with less ornamentation—in other words, a bag is a lower-level representation of a package, which includes all the inputs of that package, including some that were implicitly added by the build system. This intermediate representation is then compiled to a derivation (*note Derivations::). --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Bags are an implementation detail. -- Ricardo
