sbcl: 2.4.0 -> 2.4.1

[hraban]

Description of changes

Also rename to package.nix to make CI pass. Haven't stayed up to date with the developments around this but I guess this works.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• 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/)
• 24.05 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 and 23.11 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.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[7c6f434c]

Ah apparently the check by @infinisil checks for new top-level call and not for new files being called from the top-level, so the directory has to be moved to pkgs/by-name/sb/sbcl and all the calls to it retargeted. But hopefully this shouldn't break anything in the process…

[hraban]

Hmm it wants pkgs/by-name/sb/sbcl_2_4_1, i.e. including the version. That's not ideal.

[hraban]

The RFC lists this under "future work":

What to do with different versions, e.g. wlroots = wlroots_0_14? This goes into version resolution, a different problem to fix

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/dfb6bdf32e48e7d7e2d7c08dde4ec134c723efc9/rfcs/0140-simple-package-paths.md#future-work

But it's blocking this PR now

[infinisil]

Sorry this is a false positive, feel free to ignore! I'm currently working on a fix

[7c6f434c]

@ofborg build sbcl.pkgs.iolib sbcl.pkgs.stumpwm

[infinisil]

Sorry this is a false positive, feel free to ignore! I'm currently working on a fix

#285089

[infinisil]

Turns out this shouldn't have been allowed by CI after all, but for different reasons! Check out #287083 for more details, we have to move sbcl out of pkgs/by-name after all 😅