| 5 Jun 2021 |
 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 |
| maralorn | And can keep the config as is. | 11:08:51 |
| sterni (he/him) | the way I'd do it is to pass an argument defaultCompilerBroken to hackage-packages.nix | 11:32:03 |
| sterni (he/him) | and always emit broken = defaultCompilerBroken; | 11:32:12 |
| maralorn | hm, that will be a lot more characters. And I don‘t understand it exactly. That variable would be a bool we set to true when we are evaluating for the default compiler? | 12:33:06 |
| maralorn | If so I imagine a broken = forDefaultCompiler would work better? | 12:33:34 |
| maralorn | Regarding to stackage-nightly. I am curious how much worse it would be to just not update stackage at all for a few weeks (or maybe even months?) compared to staying on LTS. | 12:37:01 |
| maralorn | otoh, when switching to LTS would mean nearly no package downgrades we could just switch. | 12:38:14 |
| maralorn | Or do you think the community will grow unsatisfied if we hop in between?^^ | 12:39:03 |
 joe (he/him) | nixpkgs is going back to lts? | 12:39:11 |
| joe (he/him) | sorry, perhaps I should read the conversation | 12:39:19 |
 Las | What is the problem with GHC 9 support anyway? | 12:39:29 |
| maralorn | Las: Mainly that haskell-language-server is not ghc 9 compatible, yet. | 12:39:56 |
| Las | Couldn't just haskell language server stay on GHC 8.10? | 12:40:15 |
| maralorn | Las: No, no way. Completely impossible. | 12:40:33 |
| sterni (he/him) | In reply to @maralorn:maralorn.de
If so I imagine a broken = forDefaultCompiler would work better? yeah well naming is the other thing always :) but that would be the idea indeed | 12:40:39 |
| maralorn | In reply to @Las:matrix.org
Couldn't just haskell language server stay on GHC 8.10? I mean we could still deliver an 8.10 hls to the users. But they wouldn‘t be able to use it on their haskellPackages packages. | 12:41:39 |
| Las | makes sense | 12:41:48 |
| maralorn | Maybe that’s something we need to swallow. But it would completely break my use case for nixpkgs and I would likely quickly loose interest in maintaining it.^^ | 12:42:40 |
