{ruby,neovim}: fix build with content-addressed derivations

[tie]

Description of changes

This PR fixes some packages that were broken after #211783 with contentAddressedByDefault. See #211783 (comment), #211783 (comment), and #214044 (comment)

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 23.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[tie]

Wrt #211783, I think this should be a separate parameter for mkDerivation instead of overriding the meaning of (dis)allowed{References,Requisites} by discarding the context (breaking content-addressed derivations along the way).

[Artturin]

Should target staging, follow contributing.md to rebase. Undraft once done.

[tie]

I don’t think a rebase is necessary.

$ git rebase --onto upstream/staging... upstream/master
Current branch fix-ca-derivations-disallowed is up to date.

[ConnorBaker]

This is kind of difficult to review due to the number of rebuilds. Any suggestions for a more limited way to run nixpkgs-review which verifies that this 1) fixes the problem and 2) doesn't break anything else?

[r-vdp]

Why do we have stdenv.cc for neovim and stdenv.cc.cc for ruby, in disallowedRequisites ?

[pillowtrucker]

fwiw I've been testing the ruby side of this for 2 days and haven't had any issues

[marsam]

Thank you!