| 4 Jun 2021 |
 sterni (he/him) | so not sure if I'll | 23:55:05 |
| sterni (he/him) | * so not sure if I want to keep it up tbh | 23:55:13 |
| sterni (he/him) | we definitely need someone to do the initial aarch64-darwin as well | 23:55:58 |
| sterni (he/him) | but seems like that would be pending a new GHC release anyways so we can keep doing nothing :) | 23:56:58 |
| 5 Jun 2021 |
| sterni (he/him) | maralorn: fixed reflex-dom in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/125429/commits/9b1e0e4b7492c4bdba7d91d0c927144217e80cc7 | 00:32:08 |
|  Jan Tojnar joined the room. | 00:35:01 |
 cdepillabout | We could always just hold off updating our Stackage Nightly pin for a month or two. | 01:36:26 |
| cdepillabout | After a month or two, if top-level packages still don't work, then we can just mark them broken and wait for their maintainers to unbreak them. | 01:40:34 |
| cdepillabout | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
I can do darwin testing and fixing, but I'm noticing that I'm doing it out of a feeling of obligation and it is frustrating me I really want to urge you not to feel obligation here. I think in open source, if someone wants something working, the burden is really on them to get it working. You really shouldn't feel an obligation getting something working that you don't use, especially if it could possibly burn you out. | 01:42:24 |
| cdepillabout | I guess I see our role more as providing a platform and framework that maintainers can use to get their Haskell packages building, rather than the three of us actually being responsible for keeping all the top-level Haskell packages building. | 01:45:25 |
| cdepillabout | We should probably keep pandoc building though... | 01:46:52 |
|  thomasjm joined the room. | 08:46:03 |
| sterni (he/him) | cdepillabout: well that's what I am afraid of, too, but I just can't help myself very often | 10:21:34 |
| sterni (he/him) | I think we should make the broken list limited to the default GHC somehow | 10:23:55 |
| sterni (he/him) | it may be very annoying to deal with marked-as broken packages on GHC 9 which have just been marked as broken because they require the newer base or time library | 10:24:29 |
| sterni (he/him) | although it is probably an extra eval time cost to manage this separately | 10:24:46 |
 maralorn | I am not sure about this. | 10:25:51 |
| maralorn | The broken state between different ghc versions is probably highly correlated if you compare it across the whole package set. | 10:27:13 |
 ahdyt | is that broken state also cause hls to crash? | 10:45:11 |
| maralorn | ahdyt: I don‘t understand. | 10:45:39 |
| sterni (he/him) | maralorn: but it doesn't matter since we don't build the other sets anyways | 11:05:16 |
| sterni (he/him) | it is let fan service | 11:05:19 |
| sterni (he/him) | * it is les fan service | 11:05:25 |
| sterni (he/him) | * it is less fan service | 11:05:29 |
| sterni (he/him) | but the non default package sets are always gonna be broken in suprising ways… | 11:05:44 |
| maralorn | True | 11:05:54 |
| maralorn | Yeah, it probably wouldn‘t be bad in principle. But I am not sure how to do it. | 11:06:43 |
| maralorn | I think using the broken flags in hackage-packages.nix seems reasonable. | 11:07:05 |
| maralorn | Maybe we insert a step, when evaluating a non standard ghc that strips all broken flags right after loading hackage-packages but before applying any other overrides? | 11:08:11 |
| maralorn | That way we pay no additional cost on the standard ghc. | 11:08:24 |
