Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

nixpkgs manual: advise against overriding whole phases #26345

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 19, 2017
Merged

nixpkgs manual: advise against overriding whole phases #26345

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 7 additions & 1 deletion doc/stdenv.xml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -318,7 +318,13 @@ containing some shell commands to be executed, or by redefining the
shell function
<varname><replaceable>name</replaceable>Phase</varname>. The former
is convenient to override a phase from the derivation, while the
latter is convenient from a build script.</para>
latter is convenient from a build script.

However, typically one only wants to <emphasis>add</emphasis> some
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, yes, but what if I really want to replace the default phase behavior, but keep the hooks. We should really explain that.

commands to a phase, e.g. by defining <literal>postInstall</literal>
or <literal>preFixup</literal>, as skipping some of the default actions
may have unexpected consequences.
</para>


<section xml:id="ssec-controlling-phases"><title>Controlling
Expand Down