| 9 Aug 2025 |
|  crtschin joined the room. | 01:58:10 |
|  danl joined the room. | 05:01:30 |
 emily | how does one understand why a non-Stackage package is several major versions old in the Haskell package set? would it be because of things requiring an older version, or are Hackage packages not bumped en masse at all? | 22:03:17 |
| emily | llvm-tf is at 16.0 and I don't immediately see why – seems like the stuff pinning llvm-* to old versions are already marked broken | 22:04:57 |
 sterni (he/him) | because the llvm-tf > 16 versions have only been uploaded a month ago | 22:08:41 |
| sterni (he/him) | staging is on 21.0 | 22:08:47 |
| emily | ah I didn't notice that even 17.0 was so recent… thank you | 22:10:26 |
| sterni (he/him) | you should be able to find out by grepping pkgs/development/haskell-modules/configuration-* if it should be the case | 22:11:30 |
| emily | is it intentional that https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/ca321b05ae7f096c195eb14809e55ef9921f19eb/pkgs/development/haskell-modules/configuration-nix.nix#L506-L514 will make CI fail on LLVM bumps? | 22:11:40 |
| sterni (he/him) | yes-ish | 22:12:14 |
| sterni (he/him) | it's mostly meant to fail our CI, but it's hard to implement that | 22:12:42 |
| emily | right | 22:14:00 |
| sterni (he/him) | in my experience bindings etc. are pretty tricky because no one tests these when updating the base package, so I wanted to make it visible for us here at least | 22:14:35 |
| sterni (he/him) | but we should probably revert it | 22:14:49 |
| sterni (he/him) | the problem is also that you can't just update the number on the bump yet because the package wants to link against libLLVM21-git | 22:15:33 |
| sterni (he/him) | at least last I checked | 22:15:40 |
| emily | well, we do build quite a lot of stuff when bumping LLVM | 22:32:12 |
| emily | at least | 22:32:14 |
| emily | so it may be a special case in terms of bindings | 22:32:17 |
| 10 Aug 2025 |
| sterni (he/him) | Haskell bindings get frequently overlooked in my experience | 00:44:17 |
| sterni (he/him) | though we haven't had Haskell LLVM bindings where an up to date version is readily available | 00:44:43 |
| sterni (he/him) | llvm-hs never uploaded anything after 9.0.1 to Hackage and I never bothered to work out how usable the llvm-12 branch was | 00:45:40 |
| sterni (he/him) | now that's all kind of irrelevant | 00:45:46 |
| emily | I mean more "when we bump LLVM people are building full Darwin systems" | 02:00:07 |
| 11 Aug 2025 |
 lambdatheultimatealias | I can see a few of us have fixes in Hackage for Ghc 9.12. Should we be waiting for the next run of the Hackage update script on the haskell-updates branch or running it ourselves and submitting the relevant patch as a PR? Also is there a way of knowing in general whether another pull from Hackage is planned to avoid unnecessary PRs? | 10:49:49 |
| sterni (he/him) | I'll probably do another one, maybe we'll get Stackage LTS 24.4 even | 14:57:19 |
| 13 Aug 2025 |
|  Mrjt. joined the room. | 05:53:57 |
|  aveltras joined the room. | 09:38:45 |
 Artem | is there a reasonable tutorial for how to start helping with failures in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/429810? haskell-modules/HACKING.md says "Steps to fix Haskell packages that are failing to build is out of scope for this document" | 15:27:38 |
 maralorn | https://discourse.nixos.org/t/call-for-contributions-we-are-updating-to-ghc-9-10-2/67756 | 15:32:11 |
