| 27 Apr 2025 |
 sterni (he/him) | * specifically what derivation? | 09:53:35 |
 Find me at aleksana:qaq.li | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
specifically what derivation. Ideally pkgsCross.loongarch64-linux.haskell.compilers.ghc94 | 09:54:23 |
| Find me at aleksana:qaq.li | ghc984 | 09:54:32 |
| sterni (he/him) | That would set finalStage = Stage2 if the assert were removed. ghc94 would also do Stage2. | 09:57:52 |
| sterni (he/him) | Can't really tell you why you are seeing just stage1, though since you are obviously working on some kind of wip tree? | 09:58:28 |
| Find me at aleksana:qaq.li | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
Can't really tell you why you are seeing just stage1, though since you are obviously working on some kind of wip tree? No, I'm working on nixpkgs master | 09:58:44 |
| Find me at aleksana:qaq.li | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
That would set finalStage = Stage2 if the assert were removed. ghc94 would also do Stage2. I'm building the cross compiler, yes, just didn't know this can be changed | 09:59:31 |
 alexfmpe | I want to remove a lib.warn from a derivation, AFAICT that causes no rebuilds whatsoever so does it go to master so it gets merged back into staging-next and haskell-updates? | 11:31:05 |
| alexfmpe | * I want to remove a lib.warn from a derivation, AFAICT that causes no rebuilds whatsoever
should it go to master so that it gets merged back into staging-next and haskell-updates? | 11:31:22 |
 maralorn | A Haskell lib? | 11:36:30 |
| maralorn | imo you can do whatever you want. Small changes which cause little rebuilds are always allowed to go to master in our new paradigm. | 11:37:08 |
| maralorn | Merging to haskell-updates is always fine. | 11:37:27 |
 Alex | In reply to @aleksana:mozilla.org
Generating the tarball just needs some cutoff before installPhase, so omit this now Nixpkgs outputs can be used as is by using nix-copy-closure or nix copy to upload them to the target machine.
If you need a tarball, there is also nix-store --export or nix nar pack. | 13:19:23 |
| alexfmpe | huh I messed up and force pushed the remove warning to haskell-updates instead of to my branch but AFAICT was rebased properly so all that happened is I removed the warning directly on haskell-updates instead of doing a PR against it | 16:53:33 |
| maralorn | We have branch protection, so afaik you couldn't have pushed it if it wasn't a forward. | 17:11:08 |
| alexfmpe | I think the force bit in force push is lazy | 17:58:57 |
|  @denizalpd:matrix.org left the room. | 18:00:29 |
| 28 Apr 2025 |
|  chvp left the room. | 14:30:17 |
| 29 Apr 2025 |
|  ortolanbunting3002 joined the room. | 01:26:35 |
 woobilicious | man I'm having this super weird issue where typed-process in ghci via nix-shell has the Process type, but nix shell for my haskell script doesn't | 06:15:28 |
| Alex | In reply to @woobilicious:matrix.org
man I'm having this super weird issue where typed-process in ghci via nix-shell has the Process type, but nix shell for my haskell script doesn't Different Nixpkgs versions? | 07:03:34 |
| woobilicious | should be the same version, I think it's just a quirk of the package, I was using it to pattern match so I just changed my code, which was required for the next step anyway. | 07:08:52 |
| woobilicious | Converting a bash script to Haskell just because I can lol. | 07:10:36 |
|  @malteneuss:matrix.org joined the room. | 08:48:25 |
| @malteneuss:matrix.org left the room. | 10:33:14 |
| 30 Apr 2025 |
|  @devalot:matrix.org left the room. | 09:06:01 |
 JoelMcCracken | curious, on hackage it appears that typed-process had a Process type since the first published version | 13:32:52 |
| @malteneuss:matrix.org joined the room. | 16:56:29 |
| 1 May 2025 |
 thirdofmay18081814goya | Is there a way to package a cabal-install such that it comes with a user config? | 16:59:58 |
| thirdofmay18081814goya | i.e. with what would be usually in $HOME/.cabal/config | 17:00:29 |
