Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

haskellPackages.some: build on ghc < 9.8 #382159

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: haskell-updates
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

alexfmpe
Copy link
Member

Due to https://github.com/haskellari/some/blob/v1.0.6/some.cabal#L74-L76

Things done

  • Built on platform(s)
    • x86_64-linux
    • aarch64-linux
    • x86_64-darwin
    • aarch64-darwin
  • For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
    • sandbox = relaxed
    • sandbox = true
  • Tested, as applicable:
  • Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
  • Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • 25.05 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 Release notes)
    • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
    • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
    • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

@@ -2740,6 +2740,11 @@ self: super: {
})
] super.hailgun;

some =
if lib.versionAtLeast pkgs.haskell.packages.ghc96.ghc.version self.ghc.version
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should forcefully complain once 9.6 is dropped, helping with garbage collection

Copy link
Member Author

@alexfmpe alexfmpe Feb 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Strictly speaking, this isn't < 9.8.
If we had, say, ghc968 but ghc96 resolved to ghc967, this would evaluate as versionAtLeast 9.6.7 9.6.8 on ghc968.some, but I assume that doesn't really happen and saves us some messing with lib.version.majorMinor

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant