Haskell in Nixpkgs/NixOS | 721 Members | |
| For discussions and questions about Haskell with Nix, cabal2nix and haskellPackages in nixpkgs | Current Docs: https://haskell4nix.readthedocs.io/ | 145 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 17 May 2025 | ||
In reply to @maralorn:maralorn.deYeah, that looks about right. Building it on the nixos-24.11 branch where there is still GHC 9.6.6 does not have that error. | 12:37:07 | |
| (it's still broken because of depependency bounds) | 12:37:18 | |
| Huh, I mean it is a custom Setup.hs. | 12:43:49 | |
| At least the header indicates that. | 12:44:06 | |
| I wonder if it works if you just rm it in the postPatch phase. | 12:44:33 | |
| It does! Thanks for the tip. :) | 12:46:37 | |
| I'll open a PR against haskell-updates. | 12:47:01 | |
| * I'll open a PR against haskell-updates to unbreak it. | 12:47:06 | |
| I guess this has something to do with the recent modification of cabal build types, yet the error message is a bit baffling. | 12:47:38 | |
| Do you think it makes sense to open a PR upstream removing the Setup.hs? I never quite understood what purpose that file serves. | 12:48:13 | |
my understanding is that it's basically the equivalent of a Makefile? like running | 12:51:29 | |
| i actually ran into issues not having a Setup.hs present when I tried to package some of my code for other Distros like Arch | 12:51:48 | |
| I feel semi comfortable giving advice on this without understanding the problem. 😄 But yeah my general heuristic is that packages which don’t need special setup shouldn’t ship their own Setup.hs. The nixpkgs builder uses a fallback when that happens. | 12:54:25 | |
| But it would be interesting to see how their Setup.hs deviates from the current default. | 12:55:19 | |
| https://github.com/facebook/Haxl/blob/main/Setup.hs It has a licence header on top. :think | 13:29:01 | |
| * https://github.com/facebook/Haxl/blob/main/Setup.hs It has a licence header on top. 🤔 | 13:29:07 | |
| Plot twist: Someone somewhere built in a killswitch triggered by Meta. 😆 | 13:34:18 | |
| probably company-provisioned editor config | 20:47:28 | |
| big tech has really retentive lawyers | 20:48:14 | |
| facebook/duckling wouldn't even accept my PR fixing the syntax for a haddock comment without me signing their snowflake license | 20:48:31 | |
| proportional much | 20:49:04 | |
| 23:30:21 | ||
| 18 May 2025 | ||
| Thank you for the response, I'm currently trying this out. Each time I build it takes about 20 minutes, so I'll let you know how it goes in awhile. | 11:22:35 | |
| After an update, I've come up against another failure.
| 11:38:59 | |
| Here's the full trace. https://bpa.st/QC7A | 11:40:43 | |
| looks like the hard coded overrides are outdated in stacklock2nix https://github.com/cdepillabout/stacklock2nix/blob/108f6ab6d0208e3842443bea26dfd72b37d82f28/nix/build-support/stacklock2nix/cabal2nixArgsForPkg.nix#L128 | 13:23:56 | |
| Damn, alright. Guess I'll need a different approach. | 13:24:38 | |
| As is documented in that file you can pass your own overrides. | 13:25:42 | |
I assume somewhere in here yeah? This is my first time doing this. What would I put? | 13:33:55 | |
| it's documented here https://github.com/cdepillabout/stacklock2nix/blob/108f6ab6d0208e3842443bea26dfd72b37d82f28/nix/build-support/stacklock2nix/default.nix#L27-L31 | 13:41:21 | |