| 26 Dec 2025 |
 Magnus | Did `ghc9103` get dropped from 25.11?
Only the native-bignum variant is present still. | 16:03:58 |
| Magnus | Somehow `ghc910` is listed as version 9.10.3 still though. | 16:11:13 |
 emily | isn't that because GMP or whatever was removed upstream? | 16:11:14 |
| emily | ah, no, that was integer-simple | 16:11:52 |
| emily | 9.10.3 looks there to me https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/nixos-25.11/pkgs/top-level/haskell-packages.nix | 16:12:02 |
| Magnus | I don't see it at https://search.nixos.org/packages?channel=25.11&query=ghc910 | 16:16:51 |
| emily | it's just being deduplicated with haskell.compiler.ghc910 pretty sure. search is weird. | 16:18:03 |
| emily | the minor version attributes aren't very supported AIUI | 16:18:10 |
| emily | er, the patch version ones that is | 16:18:14 |
| emily | you should say ghc910 rather than ghc9103 | 16:18:22 |
| Magnus | It's just than when doing overrides it's really nice to specify the exact version. Especially when we've in the past have been using several different minor versions in different projects that all share a common overlay. | 16:20:38 |
| Magnus | Very strange... I seem to have gotten a broken hash or something, because a 2nd nix flake update updated the hash again... and now 9.10.3 is there. I guess it was a blip. Very strange. | 16:23:18 |
| Magnus | * Very strange... I seem to have gotten a broken hash or something, because a 2nd nix flake update updated the hash again... and now 9.10.3 is there. I guess it was a blip. 🤷♂️ | 16:24:42 |
 Jack (he/him) | Hi everyone. Thanks for all the work you do. Is there a nice way to force GHC to use the llvm backend in a similar way to pkgs.pkgsLLVM? I've noticed that if you dig in in the repl at `nixpkgs#haskell.compliler.ghc914.llvmPackages' it has what looks like a set "-fllvm"-satisfying dependencies. | 19:12:09 |
