| 9 Aug 2025 |
 emily | is it intentional that https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/ca321b05ae7f096c195eb14809e55ef9921f19eb/pkgs/development/haskell-modules/configuration-nix.nix#L506-L514 will make CI fail on LLVM bumps? | 22:11:40 |
 sterni (he/him) | yes-ish | 22:12:14 |
| sterni (he/him) | it's mostly meant to fail our CI, but it's hard to implement that | 22:12:42 |
| emily | right | 22:14:00 |
| sterni (he/him) | in my experience bindings etc. are pretty tricky because no one tests these when updating the base package, so I wanted to make it visible for us here at least | 22:14:35 |
| sterni (he/him) | but we should probably revert it | 22:14:49 |
| sterni (he/him) | the problem is also that you can't just update the number on the bump yet because the package wants to link against libLLVM21-git | 22:15:33 |
| sterni (he/him) | at least last I checked | 22:15:40 |
| emily | well, we do build quite a lot of stuff when bumping LLVM | 22:32:12 |
| emily | at least | 22:32:14 |
| emily | so it may be a special case in terms of bindings | 22:32:17 |
| 10 Aug 2025 |
| sterni (he/him) | Haskell bindings get frequently overlooked in my experience | 00:44:17 |
| sterni (he/him) | though we haven't had Haskell LLVM bindings where an up to date version is readily available | 00:44:43 |
| sterni (he/him) | llvm-hs never uploaded anything after 9.0.1 to Hackage and I never bothered to work out how usable the llvm-12 branch was | 00:45:40 |
| sterni (he/him) | now that's all kind of irrelevant | 00:45:46 |
| emily | I mean more "when we bump LLVM people are building full Darwin systems" | 02:00:07 |
| 11 Aug 2025 |
 lambdatheultimatealias | I can see a few of us have fixes in Hackage for Ghc 9.12. Should we be waiting for the next run of the Hackage update script on the haskell-updates branch or running it ourselves and submitting the relevant patch as a PR? Also is there a way of knowing in general whether another pull from Hackage is planned to avoid unnecessary PRs? | 10:49:49 |
| sterni (he/him) | I'll probably do another one, maybe we'll get Stackage LTS 24.4 even | 14:57:19 |
| 13 Aug 2025 |
|  Mrjt. joined the room. | 05:53:57 |
|  aveltras joined the room. | 09:38:45 |
 Artem | is there a reasonable tutorial for how to start helping with failures in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/429810? haskell-modules/HACKING.md says "Steps to fix Haskell packages that are failing to build is out of scope for this document" | 15:27:38 |
 maralorn | https://discourse.nixos.org/t/call-for-contributions-we-are-updating-to-ghc-9-10-2/67756 | 15:32:11 |
| Artem | I'm trying to unbrake some packages from liquidhaskell ecosystem. One package's test suite assumes Z3 is available in the PATH. What's a better way to fix it: dontCheck or add z3 as a dependency somewhere (where?). | 16:27:58 |
| emily | probably nativeCheckInputs | 16:28:52 |
| Artem | @emily this looks plausible except I don't see it ever be used inside haskell-modules. I see a bunch of those in other *-modules, but they have a different setup, so I'm not sure where to put these nativeCheckInputs for a haskell package | 16:37:37 |
 Alyssa Ross | Where would you put extra buildInputs or nativeBuildInputs? | 16:41:27 |
| Alyssa Ross | Those must be used somewhere | 16:41:36 |
| Artem | I'm not really seeing those in haskell-modules either | 16:48:14 |
| Alyssa Ross | I do, in configuration-nix.nix | 16:48:55 |
| Alyssa Ross | oh, addBuildDepend sounds relevant | 16:49:10 |
