[Ericson2314]

I think Eelco has in mind a separate thing that would still be a store object field. But IMO we should not do that since derives are unique, and we should instead use the "build trace" instead, which properly handles that.

As Martin Schwaighofer has discussed, it is fine and in fact good for build traces entries to have arbitrary meta data, so the "claims" being cryptographically signed are more precise. (This is good for auditing, and if something looks suspicious, having full accountability.)

So on that grounds, if eelco would like to include some "this came from this flake" information as informal metadata. (formally the key must still the resolved derivation.) That is fine with me.

---

As I linked in my other reply, see my fast-growing https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/14408 docs PR where I try to formally nail all this stuff down for the first time.

[mschwaig]

I mentioned another alternative to adding flake-specific metadata to data structures that are transferred over the network, as part of the signed traces or otherwise, in a comment on that PR Eelco linked.

It's keeping flake-specific data locally, to guarantee that it matches how the user ended up with the data, not how the builder produced it. I think otherwise from the user POV such data could again look misleading.

[Ericson2314]

Good point. It is misleading if different flakes end up producing the same derivation, and we don't want to resign our build trace entry to account for that (which would amplify reads into writes). Separate indirection for this eval->store layer accounting sounds good.