Re: merge wip-haskell?

Nice! Thanks Tim!

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Hi again, Timothy Sample writes: > I‘ll take a look at PureScript and check Elm, since maybe the Agda fix > will work for them. I’m not sure about Idris – it needs a bit more > effort. Good news! Elm and PureScript are fine, and I just pushed a fix for Idris:

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Hi John, John Soo writes: > Does anyone know why idris, agda, and purescript are failing? The really short version is that we now use shared libraries for Haskell dependencies, which mostly works, except for some of the more complicated builds. I did fix Agda a little while ago, so I think

Re: merge wip-haskell?

On another note: Does anyone know why idris, agda, and purescript are failing? I have only been able to do very little recently to look at them. - John

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Hi! Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Ricardo Wurmus skribis: >> >>> Yes, and for the case of pandoc it’s significant. The closure of >>> ghc-pandoc is >3GiB right now and with the changes it’s <200MiB. This >>> affects lots of R packages that need Rmarkdown, and lots

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Ludovic Courtès writes: > Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > >> Yes, and for the case of pandoc it’s significant. The closure of >> ghc-pandoc is >3GiB right now and with the changes it’s <200MiB. This >> affects lots of R packages that need Rmarkdown, and lots of bioinfo >> packages. > > Are those

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Yes, and for the case of pandoc it’s significant. The closure of > ghc-pandoc is >3GiB right now and with the changes it’s <200MiB. This > affects lots of R packages that need Rmarkdown, and lots of bioinfo > packages. Are those changes part of what was merged? I

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Hi! Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > I just merged “wip-haskell” into “master” (after merging “master” into > “wip-haskell”). Awesome work, thank you! Ludo’.

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Hey Ricardo, Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > >> Timothy Sample writes: >> >>> I just pushed “wip-haskell-updates-2” which integrates my work from >>> . I left the original branch intact >>> to make it easy to compare. >> >> I rebased this

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Timothy Sample writes: > >> I just pushed “wip-haskell-updates-2” which integrates my work from >> . I left the original branch intact >> to make it easy to compare. > > I rebased this on top of “master” and pushed it as

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Timothy Sample writes: > I just pushed “wip-haskell-updates-2” which integrates my work from > . I left the original branch intact > to make it easy to compare. I rebased this on top of “master” and pushed it as “wip-haskell”. I updated my changes to

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Timothy Sample writes: > I just pushed “wip-haskell-updates-2” which integrates my work from > . I left the original branch intact > to make it easy to compare. Thank you! I’ll work off of wip-haskell-updates-2 now. > Basically, where you remove the

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Timothy Sample writes: > Also, it looks like “wip-haskell-updates” is no longer being built by > the CI infrastructure. Since the branch triggers a rebuild of all the > Haskell packages, it should be built before merging, right? Yes, I’ll rebase it on top of “master” and add the

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Hi John and Ricardo, John Soo writes: > I believe there was also some work being done to de-duplicate flags > sent to gcc sent by ghc (this was the only thing keeping stack from > building). > I hope that can make it in, too! I agree, and sorry to you John for the delay. I’m not using much

Re: merge wip-haskell?

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 06:27:21PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > Jakub Kądziołka writes: > > > On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:13:46AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > >> Number 4 is by far the ugliest change of them all. In order to > >> statically link packages we need to add all the “static”

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Jakub Kądziołka writes: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:13:46AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> Number 4 is by far the ugliest change of them all. In order to >> statically link packages we need to add all the “static” outputs of all >> Haskell inputs *and* the “static” outputs of *their*

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Hi Ricardo and Jakub, Ah ok. Sorry I had forgotten the point of the thread. Sounds like a plan! - John On Aug 7, 2020, at 8:59 AM, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:  Jakub Kądziołka writes: >> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:12:36AM -0700, John Soo wrote: >> I would rather wait until some evidence that

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Jakub Kądziołka writes: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:12:36AM -0700, John Soo wrote: >> I would rather wait until some evidence that the closure size would be too >> large. Also I’m not sure propagation is necessary for dependents to find >> libraries or use paths from an input. > > Ricardo

Re: merge wip-haskell?

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:12:36AM -0700, John Soo wrote: > I would rather wait until some evidence that the closure size would be too > large. Also I’m not sure propagation is necessary for dependents to find > libraries or use paths from an input. Ricardo already explained that this is indeed

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Hi Jakub, I could see splitting the static output being useful but I would rather wait until some evidence that the closure size would be too large. Also I’m not sure propagation is necessary for dependents to find libraries or use paths from an input. Thoughts? John On Aug 7, 2020, at 8:04

Re: merge wip-haskell?

On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:13:46AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Number 4 is by far the ugliest change of them all. In order to > statically link packages we need to add all the “static” outputs of all > Haskell inputs *and* the “static” outputs of *their* Haskell inputs. > This is not easily

Re: merge wip-haskell?

Hi Ricardo, Nice! Sounds good to me. There are a couple other bits of work I’d like to see make it in. I believe there was also some work being done to de-duplicate flags sent to gcc sent by ghc (this was the only thing keeping stack from building). I hope that can make it in, too! If there

merge wip-haskell?

Hey there, wip-haskell contains commits that do a number of things aimed to reduce the closure of packages: 1) make the “out” (and “lib”) output independent from “doc” 2) add a “doc” output to more packages 3) add a “static” output for all Haskell packages containing the “.a” files 4) change

Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

Timothy Sample writes: > Hi, > > Robert Vollmert writes: > >> On 8. Aug 2019, at 15:12, Marius Bakke wrote: >>> I have one comment about the series: we've disabled tests on some >>> packages that have been broken "forever" on i686. It would be better to >>> do so selectively on just the

Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

Hi, Robert Vollmert writes: > On 8. Aug 2019, at 15:12, Marius Bakke wrote: >> I have one comment about the series: we've disabled tests on some >> packages that have been broken "forever" on i686. It would be better to >> do so selectively on just the affected architectures. I.e.: >> >>

Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

On 8. Aug 2019, at 15:12, Marius Bakke wrote: > I have one comment about the series: we've disabled tests on some > packages that have been broken "forever" on i686. It would be better to > do so selectively on just the affected architectures. I.e.: > > #:tests? (if (string-prefix? "i686"

Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

Timothy Sample writes: > Hi Robert and Marius, > > Marius Bakke writes: > >> Robert Vollmert writes: >> >>> Oh, I meant to ask: >>> >>> On 6. Aug 2019, at 06:29, Timothy Sample wrote: >>> I think it makes sense to wait for the core-updates merge (which shouldn’t be too far out).

Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

Hi Robert and Marius, Marius Bakke writes: > Robert Vollmert writes: > >> Oh, I meant to ask: >> >> On 6. Aug 2019, at 06:29, Timothy Sample wrote: >> >>> I think it makes sense to wait for the core-updates merge (which >>> shouldn’t be too far out). >> >> Why? Shouldn’t substitutes be

Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

Hi Robert, I pushed my touched-up version of your branch to master! (See commits a62ddb748f–caa366ec23.) Now I will enjoy closing all those patches. :) I hope all my changes are okay. Besides the changes to “ghc-8.6”, I mostly altered formatting, descriptions, and commit messages to better

Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

Robert Vollmert writes: > Oh, I meant to ask: > > On 6. Aug 2019, at 06:29, Timothy Sample wrote: >> Robert Vollmert writes: >> >>> Hi all, Timothy, >> >> Cool! I’m in the process of looking everything over. In the meantime, >> I have some early questions and comments. >> >>> I’ve

Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

Oh, I meant to ask: On 6. Aug 2019, at 06:29, Timothy Sample wrote: > Robert Vollmert writes: > >> Hi all, Timothy, > > Cool! I’m in the process of looking everything over. In the meantime, > I have some early questions and comments. > >> I’ve incorporated your comments, and removed >>

Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

Hi Timothy, > On 6. Aug 2019, at 06:29, Timothy Sample wrote: > >> #36663: adding elm compiler dependencies (just a few extra ghc >> packages) > > These commits seem to be in the wrong order. I think I can untangle > them, though. > >> #36692: GHC version 8.6.5 (just as a package for now,

Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

Hi Robert, Robert Vollmert writes: > Hi all, Timothy, > > On 25. Jul 2019, at 15:29, Timothy Sample wrote: >> Other than that, LGTM. Thanks! (Do you have commit access now or >> should I push these?) > > I do have commit access now, but for the moment I’m keeping to the > branch

Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

Hi all, Timothy, On 25. Jul 2019, at 15:29, Timothy Sample wrote: > Other than that, LGTM. Thanks! (Do you have commit access now or > should I push these?) I do have commit access now, but for the moment I’m keeping to the branch wip-haskell-updates. Thus, I’d ask you (or someone) to merge