| 29 Jan 2025 |
 maralorn | Of course that won’t work for template-haskell, base, ghc-prim and a few more. | 15:40:28 |
 lazyLambda | only thing that came up there was from beam-core | 15:47:21 |
| lazyLambda | I did do an override of beam-core in my projects default.nix but I was more so confused on why the module Rhyolite.Account had a beam type.
| 15:48:35 |
| lazyLambda | Was able to resolve btw | 15:48:48 |
 alexfmpe | FWIW, I'm already using 9.6 and multi repl for dev with a package set directly from nixpkgs (not obelisk->reflex-platform->nixpkgs) instead of ob, and 8.10 only for prod builds | 15:51:25 |
| alexfmpe | Mostly for the sake of a reliable recent HLS | 15:51:51 |
| alexfmpe | You can also get older HLS (with a more brittle multi repl) with enough overrides
https://discourse.haskell.org/t/recommended-way-of-using-hls-with-reflex-platform-obelisk/9933/6 | 15:54:46 |
| alexfmpe | At any rate, I'd expect 2 months or so for obeliskverse to be on at least 9.10 and post-ghcjs world | 15:55:40 |
 hellwolf | I wonder, with the current haskell-updates, what chances I have to jailBreak haskell.packages.ghc910.hlint_3_8 ... | 19:04:19 |
| maralorn | As always I have to ask: Why built hlint with ghc910? hlint will work perfectly fine when compiled with older ghcs. If you need support for new syntax the relevant version is that of ghc-lib-parser. | 20:31:58 |
 sterni (he/him) | maralorn: could be interesting how far you can get with this, but I suspect it's difficult. It is certainly not intended and I assume you need to build all libs for ghc or some program that is shipped with ghc | 20:35:25 |
| sterni (he/him) | you'll probably get inconsistent dependencies as soon as you link against ghc | 20:37:09 |
| maralorn | But only in previous stages, right? | 20:42:49 |
| maralorn | It’s just that I regularly fail in overriding boot libraries. | 20:43:35 |
| maralorn | And it shouldn’t necessarily be that way. | 20:43:45 |
| sterni (he/him) | not sure, but I assume also in the last | 20:43:58 |
| maralorn | That whole = null thing confuses the heck out of users. | 20:44:09 |
| maralorn | * That whole = null thing confuses the heck out of users and limits nix composability. | 20:44:19 |
| sterni (he/him) | god what's the point of a -compat package that's only compatible with 9.6 and above | 20:44:24 |
| sterni (he/him) | idk maybe we should just remove the versioned attrbiutes of core packages from the package set | 20:44:49 |
| sterni (he/him) | except for when we need them | 20:44:54 |
| maralorn | Still sounds less predictable than just using them. | 20:45:27 |
| sterni (he/him) | I mean we could try and see what happens if we reinstall the reinstallable packages | 20:45:55 |
| maralorn | I’d say we should do that if we can get away with it. But of course that’s work and I don’t know if it would work. | 20:46:04 |
| sterni (he/him) | but I suspect it's a real nightmare with anything that links against GHC | 20:46:08 |
| maralorn | That’s a good point. | 20:46:26 |
| maralorn | How does that even?^^ | 20:46:42 |
| maralorn | Like with which stage are boot packages compiled? | 20:46:56 |
| maralorn | I mean ghc the lib cannot be compiled by itself of the same stage, right?^^ | 20:47:22 |
| hellwolf | In reply to @maralorn:maralorn.de
As always I have to ask: Why built hlint with ghc910? hlint will work perfectly fine when compiled with older ghcs. If you need support for new syntax the relevant version is that of ghc-lib-parser. some extensions are 9.10+, hlint wouldn't support it. | 20:48:01 |
