haskellPackages.ghcjs-dom: build on js backend of ghc 9.8#309650
haskellPackages.ghcjs-dom: build on js backend of ghc 9.8#309650sternenseemann merged 1 commit intoNixOS:haskell-updatesfrom
Conversation
|
I assume on 9.6 the FFI support wasn't there yet as the build fails with |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried to add this before, alongside the other platformConfigurations, but the overrides would get lost as configuration-ghc-9.8.nix (passed in compilerConfig) would then reset to null or overwrite due to picking the most-recent hackage version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don’t get it. there do not seem to be conflicting overrides for the packages in ghcjs-9.x.nix after the changes you are making. Are you sure this doesn’t work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you sure this doesn’t work?
Confirmed to be working now. I think the problem is that I originally had
aeson = disableLibraryProfiling super.aeson;
which was being replaced by the flat aeson override in the 9.8 bit but now we disable profiling globally for JS flavors so this is no longer a problem.
|
8c61a34 should simplify this PR a lot! I'm wondering if we even need a special file for the js backend at all. Most of these packages wouldn't build with normal GHCs anyways, so we can apply the overrides in the normal configuration-nix.nix? Or do you think there's an advantage in having them conditional? The disadvantage of this is that eval regressions won't be caught since we can't test the entire set on Hydra… |
Huh, how? DId you mean the With this change, the I think the change also requires removing so that it builds on That in turn makes to so we probably should set its supported platforms, but that needs the call2nix release. Edit: Done |
564ef5d to
50cc576
Compare
|
Anything left to do here? |
|
Thank you very much! Any explanation regarding the white space changes in hackage-packages.nix? I left one other comment. Apart from that this looks good to me. Ah, do we already have enough hydra jobs for this? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer if we could just use platformConfigurations for this instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed. This now works, as per: #309650 (comment)
Oops, fixed. |
Probably not, we should expand that, but that can probably be done in a follow up change. |
Description of changes
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.