| 28 Dec 2025 |
| Lenny. changed their display name from Lenny. to Lenny. ☎️5665. | 14:25:15 |
| 29 Dec 2025 |
MangoIV | I'm going nutz - I do doJailbreak hsuper.integer-logarithms as usual and it's build-type Simple and it fails with missing or private dependencies ghc-bignum <bla> installed <blup>
Is that something that happens only with ghc-bignum? Or does somebody know what's going on there?
| 10:44:45 |
Alex | In reply to @mangoiv.:matrix.org
I'm going nutz - I do doJailbreak hsuper.integer-logarithms as usual and it's build-type Simple and it fails with missing or private dependencies ghc-bignum <bla> installed <blup>
Is that something that happens only with ghc-bignum? Or does somebody know what's going on there?
Most likely it's because it's a conditional dependency. IIRC jailbreak does not work with those, so you'll need to patch the Cabal description with more primitive methods or find another way around the issue instead. | 12:51:44 |
MangoIV | right; i guess calling it again with callCabal2nix would have also worked with the right ghc version - I decided to just patch it upstream ^^ | 12:53:31 |
| 30 Dec 2025 |
sterni | Wolfgang Walther: so what is actually the state of __structuredAttrs itself? How widely supported is it nowadays and how many issues remain with it? I remember that in the past there were always various problems or bugs with certain Nix versions. | 12:30:18 |
sterni | I think writing code that simultaneously supports __structuredAttrs true and false is somewhat nonsensical especially when code is written in a way that it has an extra API to work around regular argument splitting limitations. | 12:31:10 |
sterni | If __structuredAttrs is truly the way to go and there are no potentially showstopping issues, I'd rather redesign the GHC expression and generic builder in a breaking way and always use structured attrs. | 12:32:09 |
sterni | it'd help mkDerivation, actually, in some ways. | 12:32:21 |
sterni | I must say that I personally find __structuredAttrs a bit icky since it's not exactly simple nor has clean separation of concerns, but oh well… | 12:33:43 |