This adds a test to check that a commit like 0a3dab4af3 would fail CI
After doing some improvements to the `pkgs/by-name` check I discovered
that sbcl shouldn't have been allowed in `pkgs/by-name` after all as is.
Specifically, the requirement is that if `pkgs/by-name/sb/sbcl` exists,
the definition of the `sbcl` attribute must look like
sbcl = callPackage ../by-name/sb/sbcl/package.nix { ... };
However it currently is an alias like
sbcl = sbcl_2_4_1;
This wasn't detected before because `sbcl_2_4_1` was semantically
defined using `callPackage`:
sbcl_2_4_1 = wrapLisp {
pkg = callPackage ../development/compilers/sbcl { version = "2.4.1"; };
faslExt = "fasl";
flags = [ "--dynamic-space-size" "3000" ];
};
However this doesn't syntactically match what is required.
In https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/285089 I introduced syntactic
checks for exactly this, but they were only used for packages not
already in `pkgs/by-name`.
Only now that I'm doing the refactoring to also use this check for
`pkgs/by-name` packages this problem is noticed.
While introducing this new check is technically an increase in
strictness, and therefore would justify adding a new ratchet, I consider
this case to be rare enough that we don't need to do that.
This commit introduces a test to prevent such regressions in the
future
Moving sbcl back out of `pkgs/by-name` will be done when the pinned CI is updated
92284634ec