I don't love the way this code looks. There are two larger problems:
- eval, build/scratch, destination stores (#5025) should have different
types to reflect the fact that they are used for different purposes
and those purposes correspond to different operations. It should be
impossible to "use the wrong store" in my cases.
- Since drvs can end up in both the eval and build/scratch store, we
should have some sort of union/layered store (not on the file sytem
level, just conceptual level) that allows accessing both. This would
get rid of the ugly "check both" boilerplate in this PR.
Still, it might be better to land this now / soon after minimal cleanup,
so we have a concrete idea of what problem better abstractions are
supposed to solve.
9f39dda66c