| 23 May 2025 |
 TheTaoOfSu | How does stack expect to do nix integration while not being installed through nix? | 20:09:14 |
| TheTaoOfSu | I guess some people could be using it in other distros | 20:09:23 |
| TheTaoOfSu | But either way, I did it the way described in the NixOS wiki page on Haskell. I would think that, at least, would work properly without config. It certainly doesn't mention any there | 20:10:28 |
 maralorn | I don’t think that’s impossible … But the nix-integration is not something which nixos or nixpkgs injects into stack. Instead that is just a feature built into stack. | 20:10:34 |
| TheTaoOfSu | Oh, no, I take it back, here's a warning about it, I think | 20:10:47 |
| TheTaoOfSu | Yeah, it's because I'm using stable channels instead of unstable | 20:11:23 |
| TheTaoOfSu | They say to control it through stack.yaml, but one of the commands that's broken by it is stack new, so I'll have to write a starter myself | 20:12:25 |
| maralorn | Phew | 20:12:44 |
 winston | did you see https://docs.haskellstack.org/en/stable/topics/nix_integration/#supporting-both-nix-and-non-nix-developers ? | 20:15:38 |
| winston | I remember using that template when I used stack, found it useful back then | 20:15:54 |
| winston | they wrap stack so it doesn't use Nix without having to specify disabling the integration in the stack yaml | 20:16:10 |
| TheTaoOfSu | Oh that looks useful, thank you | 20:16:11 |
| 24 May 2025 |
|  Alyssa Ross joined the room. | 12:23:19 |
| Alyssa Ross | Are any of the dontChecks in configuration-8.6.x.nix still necessary, given that AFAICT the only set that uses it is ghc865Binary, which never enables checks anyway? | 12:24:17 |
| 25 May 2025 |
| Alyssa Ross | I'll just open a PR :) | 10:38:50 |
 nh2 | Is
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/4a2c6cc55d3f21dfe98ed50b171dcc3fadbec294/pkgs/development/haskell-modules/HACKING.md
outdated somehow because
regenerate-hackage-packages.sh
generates formatting disagreeing with nix-shell --run treefmt? | 12:17:27 |
| maralorn | How so? That shouldn’t be the case. | 12:21:42 |
| maralorn | We just added the formatting to regenerate-hackage-packages.sh a few weeks ago? (around the time when formatting became mandatory.) | 12:22:32 |
| nh2 | Looks like when I ran ./maintainers/scripts/haskell/regenerate-hackage-packages.sh it failed half-way with:
Running hackage2nix to regenerate pkgs/development/haskell-modules/hackage-packages.nix …
Regenerating transitive-broken.yaml … (pass --fast to ./maintainers/scripts/haskell/regenerate-hackage-packages.sh to skip this step)
error: access to absolute path '/nix' is forbidden in restricted mode
Maybe that way it failed before the formatting run?
Not sure what the cause of that error is exactly
| 12:43:03 |
| nh2 | Another small question:
Am I doing this PR right / should it be against master?
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/410785
| 12:46:12 |
| maralorn | Yeah, that’s fine against master. | 12:58:06 |
| maralorn | Huh, yeah, that is kinda troubling. | 12:59:16 |
| maralorn | You are right, I think the script failed before formatting. Question is ofc, why. | 12:59:52 |
| winston | hmm I just ran that script on c8d36fe and didn't get that error, but all I got were two maintainers changes, idk if that still means it succeeded | 13:16:05 |
 sterni (he/him) | nh2: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/400784 | 13:55:35 |
| winston | ah interesting, I tried with Nix 2.28.3 | 13:58:12 |
| 27 May 2025 |
|  @irenes:matrix.org left the room. | 09:00:39 |
| 28 May 2025 |
| sterni (he/him) | Currently looks like GHC removal project will at least kill armv7l-linux and powerpc64le-linux for GHC (the latter was very unreliable anyways, so probably not a big loss). Unless, of course, we can cross compiled GHC as bootstrap seed to work. | 15:18:20 |
| sterni (he/him) | I think armv7l is de facto dead as well, but nixpkgs CI checks eval of it?? Probably more GHC availability checks need to be added before we can drop support. | 15:19:24 |
 emily | armv7 support in Nixpkgs is pretty bad at this point I think | 15:19:56 |
