| 21 Sep 2025 |
 @wolfgangwalther:matrix.org | No, it prevents having to run CI on edited events, which happen for the base branch, but also for any PR title or description changes. If you run CI on these, but skip the jobs, the job log is spammed with a lot of skipped jobs. | 08:52:35 |
 sterni (he/him) | maralorn: will get better as builds finish. for now you can base the PRs themselves on haskell-updates which has cache | 10:37:02 |
 maralorn | Yeah, that’s what I am doing. | 10:39:37 |
| maralorn | Currently fixing HLS on 9.6 and 9.4 which is a complete nightmare. | 10:39:52 |
| sterni (he/him) | emily: if both work, is it preferrable to use python3.pkgs.xattr or darwin.xattr? I originally packaged the latter because xattr/xattr lacked some flags but seems like they merged Apple's changes back… | 14:19:57 |
 emily | hmm, I think we use darwin.file_cmds (which xattr is now an output of) for very little, e.g. we use GNU coreutils over the BSD-derived Darwin commands generally… so using whatever "everything else" uses generally seems sensible to me. OTOH, why is the other one… Python? it's a C codebase, right? | 14:23:30 |
| emily | I guess it looks like either they ported the main() to Python, or they forked from Apple when its main() was Python but Apple have since ported it to C?! | 14:24:13 |
| emily | it seems nice to avoid a runtime dependency on Python but I don't know if GHC already pulls that in | 14:24:41 |
| emily | I would say, if this is an "if Darwin, one package, else another" type thing, and the fallback case works fine, then just do that. if it's a dependency only used on Darwin, file_cmds seems more canonical. | 14:24:59 |
