| 19 Apr 2025 |
 sterni | agree & agree & agree | 18:40:27 |
|  alexfmpe changed their profile picture. | 23:55:28 |
| 20 Apr 2025 |
 maralorn | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
the 23rd is the nominal breaking change deadline and I assume there are breaking changes here If no one else does, I will finalize our merge on Tuesday. | 23:03:04 |
| 21 Apr 2025 |
|  @megmug:matrix.org left the room. | 11:25:41 |
| 22 Apr 2025 |
| sterni | I'm currently finishing the broken list and am going to merge after that. | 08:52:40 |
| sterni | Any further fixes can probably relatively easily be done on staging(-next) | 08:52:56 |
| sterni | * I'm currently finishing the broken list and am going to merge after that. Going to take a minute since I manually need to check the queued jobs. | 08:53:20 |
 hellwolf | hurray!
I would invite everyone to have a second look at the diff of 1909d9a. We can still fix packages that are worth fixing on staging (within reason, i.e. another hackage bump on there is rather difficult).
pkgs/development/haskell-modules/configuration-hackage2nix/broken.yaml: "+450-19"
Am I reading right that there are 400+ more borken packages because of the 9.8?
| 10:15:10 |
| hellwolf | https://github.com/cdepillabout/nix-haskell-updates-status
"Top 50 broken packages, sorted by number of reverse dependencies"
Is this the place to start to look for the culprits? | 10:17:02 |
 @malteneuss:matrix.org | Manually applying patches and fixing builds for weeks doesn't seem sustainable. If you have the time and haven't done so, please voice your opinion in Discourse on what has to change in GHC and/or Haskell ecosystem upstream to reduce the churn, e.g.
https://discourse.haskell.org/t/language-library-and-compiler-stability-moved-from-ghc-9-6-migration-guide/5745/92 (GHC stability/backwards compatibility)
https://discourse.haskell.org/t/introducing-the-haskell-foundation-stability-working-group/11743 (GHC stability/backwards compatibility)
https://discourse.haskell.org/t/how-much-effort-does-backwards-compatibility-require-from-library-authors/11584 (Haskell ecosystem stability/backwards compatibility)
https://discourse.haskell.org/t/request-for-comment-cabal-freeze-doesnt-produce-a-lock-file/11374 (Real Cabal lock files like e.g. Rust) | 11:00:23 |
| maralorn | Yeah, but I wouldn’t worry too much about it. e.g. quite a few of them are likely just packages newly released in the last months others might haven been disabled before because of one broken dep. | 11:00:45 |
| maralorn | malteneuss: Would you want us to use a completely different approach or do you just want to nudge the ecosystem so that we need to apply less patches and fix less builds? | 11:12:37 |
| maralorn | * Yeah, but I wouldn’t worry too much about it. e.g. quite a few of them are likely just packages newly released in the last months others might haven been disabled before because of one broken dep which got fixed. | 11:12:45 |
| maralorn | * Yeah, but I wouldn’t worry too much about it. e.g. quite a few of them are likely just packages newly released in the last months others might haven been disabled before because of one broken dep which got fixed. Yet, some others are newly broken, but if they are unmaintained probably no one cares. | 11:13:21 |
| @malteneuss:matrix.org | My gut feeling is that we need both. | 11:13:35 |
