| 29 Mar 2026 |
 alexfmpe | Somewhat related, I wonder if the ghc.nix shell could be massively reduced by being based in the shell for our hadrian derivation or something. | 13:02:15 |
| alexfmpe | Not sure if relevant here but when opening issues on ghc I tend to add a nixpkgs hash and the invocation just in case they can't reproduce it out of the box | 13:06:10 |
|  M̸̙̜̔̇Ǎ̴͎̙͔G̸̞̈N̸͔͍̝͗͋̾Ő̷͖̼͈̽̚L̷̻͚̓̔I̷̛͔̰̟̔Å̴̩̍ ̷̦̒̇͝M̷̱̠̺̉̎A̵̼̎͗͘Ỹ̸̬̲͂̕H̷̙̖͂Ē̷͉̦̌͒M̶͈̥̽̐ (you don't get my real name) changed their display name from M̸̙̜̔̇Ǎ̴͎̙͔G̸̞̈N̸͔͍̝͗͋̾Ő̷͖̼͈̽̚L̷̻͚̓̔I̷̛͔̰̟̔Å̴̩̍ ̷̦̒̇͝M̷̱̠̺̉̎A̵̼̎͗͘Ỹ̸̬̲͂̕H̷̙̖͂Ē̷͉̦̌͒M̶͈̥̽̐ to M̸̙̜̔̇Ǎ̴͎̙͔G̸̞̈N̸͔͍̝͗͋̾Ő̷͖̼͈̽̚L̷̻͚̓̔I̷̛͔̰̟̔Å̴̩̍ ̷̦̒̇͝M̷̱̠̺̉̎A̵̼̎͗͘Ỹ̸̬̲͂̕H̷̙̖͂Ē̷͉̦̌͒M̶͈̥̽̐ (you don't get my real name). | 13:22:43 |
 sterni | alexfmpe: well I did test it ahead of time, but I only tried a couple of packages that were affected by the subword division issue and cabal2nix iirc | 18:19:53 |
| 30 Mar 2026 |
|  Big man joined the room. | 04:41:17 |
 MangoIV | It can be. It just grew organically over many years. | 08:48:09 |
 Janus | I am wondering whether the plan is for nixpkgs to patch packages using memory to use ram instead? That would be interesting to see, as it could provide a relatively painless experience compared to all the builds currently failing (when mixing these) using the cabal solver... | 08:49:21 |
 maralorn | Janus: We are generally very conservative about doing switches like that. | 10:32:49 |
| maralorn | sterni: I am sorry, that I can’t be of more help right now. But it’s simply too much. I still intend to ramp up my engagement when I got everything else under control. | 10:34:03 |
| maralorn | I was wondering about the nightly switch you suggested. If we did one know could we push it through until branch-off? | 10:34:37 |
| maralorn | * I was wondering about the nightly switch you suggested. If we did one now could we push it through until branch-off? | 10:34:54 |
| maralorn | Seems a bit tight to me. So maybe we should wait and do it immediately after? | 10:35:27 |
| Janus | Aww that's too bad! Because I think that Vincent is being deliberately difficult to work with. I do understand the Hackage position, but I also know nixpkgs doesn't have any issue with adding downstream jailbreaks, which, in my mind, is a related tradeoff. | 10:59:55 |
| maralorn | Maybe we can be more flexible with memory/ram, with crypton/cryptonite our stance was that security critical decisions have to be made by upstream. | 11:02:53 |
| sterni | we did on occasion patch stuff, but IIRC only when it was clear those patches were on their way to being upstreamed and released. | 11:03:33 |
| sterni | I don't really see the point in investing time in patching packages that will never be changed upstream since this just means a lot of time down the drain when everyone else will need to get away from those packages anyways | 11:04:24 |
| sterni | So basically I'd say we should just decide this on a case by case basis. | 11:04:40 |
| sterni | maralorn: given the GHC 9.12.4 panic we encountered now, I also am not confident | 11:06:17 |
| sterni | but maybe we should start the migration and see how it works out until the cut off point though I think we'd need to be finished by the end of April more or less since e.g. the pandoc upgrade seems a little risky to do so late | 11:08:52 |
| sterni | We could look into upgrading some packages (pandoc, hledger, …?) before branch off so we are not horribly outdated on that front at least | 11:09:52 |
| maralorn | sterni: MangoIV has been chatting at me because of https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/27061#note_666912 and that it would be awesome if we could test RCs in nixpkgs. I am not sure how to do it or whether we can even stomach the workload, otoh the current game of basically every minor release being broken is probably not less work for us. Maybe we can have something like ghcHEAD per major serious and have them auto-updated via nix-update? | 11:10:38 |
| sterni | I think I need to respond on that as well | 11:11:08 |
| sterni | we could realistically add rcs as an extra attribute and test the versionedCompilerJobs but that's not much coverage | 11:12:17 |
| sterni | testing the main package set is only feasible for the main version, but I don't think we could actually do it since it just means we loose a few days of build time | 11:13:52 |
| sterni | in general, it's just not my impression that we can spare build time | 11:14:08 |
| sterni | if we had dedicated infra for that and a Hydra instance it would not be a problem of course | 11:14:32 |
| MangoIV | sterniwhat’s the procedure for 9.12.4 now? Will you add a potential patch to the compiler when we fix it? Or do you just disable the profiling build for ghcide? | 11:22:21 |
| sterni | I think we will patch like 9.12.3 | 11:24:32 |
| sterni | we still use 9.10 for most things so it's not that big a deal | 11:25:02 |
| MangoIV | Okay but after patching you’ll rebuild ghcide right | 11:26:17 |
