| 1 Jun 2021 |
 pennae | ah! yeah, symlinkJoin is definitely the easiest to write down. will stick to that then, thank you | 21:55:08 |
| 2 Jun 2021 |
 cdepillabout | I think we should try to convince berberman to stop helping package Haskell stuff on Arch, but instead help us with Nixpkgs instead:
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/125327
I'm a contributor of Haskell package set in Arch Linux official repo, but I do almost all my works on NixOS now XD
😛
| 05:35:17 |
| cdepillabout | * I think we should try to convince berberman to stop helping package Haskell stuff on Arch, but help us with Nixpkgs instead:
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/125327
I'm a contributor of Haskell package set in Arch Linux official repo, but I do almost all my works on NixOS now XD
😛
| 05:36:45 |
|  dualinverter left the room. | 08:41:47 |
 sterni (he/him) | queued job count for our jobset halfed over night! | 10:09:58 |
 maralorn | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
queued job count for our jobset halfed over night! And there are only darwin jobs left. If I were you I would merge … | 10:38:10 |
| sterni (he/him) | weren't there only darwin jobs before? | 10:38:43 |
| sterni (he/him) | I'll probably check later what the queued job situation in trunk is | 10:39:02 |
| maralorn | Yesterday there were 6 x86-linux jobs left. | 10:39:04 |
| sterni (he/him) | seems like we are getting build time again | 11:19:05 |
| sterni (he/him) | weird times | 11:19:07 |
 Las | How is https://github.com/haskell-gi/haskell-gi/issues/329 going to be dealt with? | 11:46:59 |
| Las | gi-gtk would have two fundamentally incompatible versions | 11:47:55 |
| sterni (he/him) | would have to look at it but sounds something that should be easy to deal with using nix | 11:48:40 |
| sterni (he/him) | depends on the gtk4 situation in nixpkgs in | 11:48:50 |
| sterni (he/him) | general probably as well | 11:48:56 |
| sterni (he/him) | Since builds are getting done now pretty quickly, I'm gonna wait for the darwin builds, then hopefully merge master again later today, hope that in the 1000 commits nothing triggers any major rebuilds and finish this cycle pretty quickly hopefully | 12:35:52 |
| maralorn | In reply to @Las:matrix.org
How is https://github.com/haskell-gi/haskell-gi/issues/329 going to be dealt with? Do you think there is anything we could reasonably prepare? If not we would probably default to dealing with breakages when they get introduced by the auto update. In general I just hope that once haskell-gi switches to gtk4 we will have support for it in nixpkgs. | 12:53:12 |
| sterni (he/him) | gtk4 is packaged already | 12:53:57 |
| Las | I was thinking a lot of packages would only work with gi-gtk for gtk3 | 12:53:58 |
| Las | so if gi-gtk suddenly becomes gtk4 a lot of packages would break I think | 12:54:38 |
| sterni (he/him) | we can just pin the version for the default attribute and override the package that need the newer one manually | 12:55:11 |
| sterni (he/him) | but may be a lot of annoying manual effort if they don't split the packages, yes | 12:55:35 |
| maralorn | Yeah its quite a hazzle because haskell-gi has so many packages | 13:15:07 |
| Las | Couldn't cabal2nix see what major revision of gi-gtk a package uses and then either use haskellPackages.gi-gtk3 or haskellPackages.gi-gtk4? | 13:25:06 |
| maralorn | Las: Yeah, that would probably not be very hard. But it might require a dive into the code. | 13:27:06 |
| sterni (he/him) | not a fan of inventing virtual packages ourselves though | 13:27:36 |
| Las | You could have a separate package for each major revision of each package to make it orthogonal | 13:29:39 |
| Las | I imagine it's not just gi-gtk that is problematic | 13:29:45 |
| maralorn | Well the general problem is, that the nix derivation of a cabal package has no way to communicate any version bounds. | 13:29:55 |
