Update cargo-hyperlight version to 0.1.14

[yoshuawuyts]

Closes #1749, thanks!

Edit: this PR also adds an automatic update script to automate the cargo-hyperlight update bump. The most complicated part of that was updating the flake.nix files (see #1754 (review) from review), hence the number of changes.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates guest build tooling to use cargo-hyperlight 0.1.14.

Changes:

• Bumps the Justfile version pin from 0.1.12 to 0.1.14.
• The Nix flake pin remains at 0.1.14-pre and should be aligned.

Show a summary per file

File	Summary
Justfile	Updates the cargo-hyperlight version; the Nix pin remains inconsistent.

Review details

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 1
• Review effort level: Lite

[yoshuawuyts]

Oh heh, Copilot review flagged a good issue. I feel like I should probably write a script for that so that updating cargo-hyperlight can be automated. I'll try and get to that later today.

[yoshuawuyts]

@syntactically As the owner of our Nix flake integration, I'm assigning this to you for review.

I'm on macOS and don't have Nix installed, so I relied on AI to write the Nix update script. To get that to work I had it change the flake.nix file to no longer require having a local nix installation and pulling hash information from Crates.io instead. From what I can tell it looks fine, but I have no way of actually testing it right now - so if you could review this that would be great. Thanks!

[ludfjig]

lgtm (no idea about the nix stuff though))

[jprendes]

Same as @ludfjig , no idea about nix, but otherwise it looks good.
Maybe we split it in 2 PRs, one for the non-nix changes and another one for nix?

[yoshuawuyts]

Maybe we split it in 2 PRs, one for the non-nix changes and another one for nix?

If the Nix changes end up being incorrect or broken, I'll do that - good suggestion. I'd like to hear from @syntactically first though to see if we can land this outright.

[syntactically]

@yoshuawuyts Thank you for thinking of the nix support as a first class citizen! I took a quick look and I think the changes look good, and I did go ahead and test them locally and it seems to work fine.

The change to importCargoLock does mean using import-from-derivation, which can be a problem at large scale but is probably fine here.

to no longer require having a local nix installation

Not sure what you meant by that?

[yoshuawuyts]

Not sure what you meant by that?

Updating the flake.nix file prior to this file seemed to require access to a local nix(1) install, which I don't have. Apparently the SHA's are computed based on some kind of Nix-specific directory layout.

[syntactically]

Updating the flake.nix file prior to this file seemed to require access to a local nix(1) install, which I don't have. Apparently the SHA's are computed based on some kind of Nix-specific directory layout.

Ah, I understand what you meant. Yes, the hash that was in there previously was the hash (via a nix-specific algorithm) of a vendor directory containing downloaded copies of all the dependencies, which is probably a pain to compute the correct thing for without nix.