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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

GHC 9.8 #972

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

GHC 9.8 #972

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

endgame
Copy link
Collaborator

@endgame endgame commented Jan 9, 2024

Tweak the Nix and the ede templates so that service definitions compile with GHC 9.8.

Regenerated services to follow in a separate PR.

@brendanhay We will need to add upper bounds to the existing 2.0 service definitions because they don't build with GHC 9.8. Do you have any tooling to help with this? Given the stuff already on main, this deserves a major release, but since there's so many packages to upload, it's probably worth batching it with a couple of additional fixes. Also, can you please add me to the maintainer group for the uploaded packages?

See also: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/24317
Fixes: #969

@endgame
flake.lock: Update
21953b4 
Flake lock file updates:

• Updated input 'flake-utils':
    'github:numtide/flake-utils/dbabf0ca0c0c4bce6ea5eaf65af5cb694d2082c7' (2023-06-25)
  → 'github:numtide/flake-utils/4022d587cbbfd70fe950c1e2083a02621806a725' (2023-12-04)
• Updated input 'nixpkgs':
    'github:nixos/nixpkgs/9e4e0807d2142d17f463b26a8b796b3fe20a3011' (2023-06-26)
  → 'github:nixos/nixpkgs/24fe8bb4f552ad3926274d29e083b79d84707da6' (2024-01-07)
• Updated input 'pre-commit-hooks':
    'github:cachix/pre-commit-hooks.nix/1fa438eee82f35bdd4bc30a9aacd7648d757b388' (2023-06-26)
  → 'github:cachix/pre-commit-hooks.nix/ea96f0c05924341c551a797aaba8126334c505d2' (2024-01-08)
@endgame
flake.nix: Add GHC 9.8
a44a8d1
@endgame
types.ede: DisambiguateRecordFields -> DuplicateRecordFields
d836f68 
It implies `DuplicateRecordFields` (which I don't even think is
necessary under older GHCs), but is required for compliation on GHC
9.8.

See: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/24317
@brendanhay
Copy link
Owner

brendanhay commented Jan 9, 2024 •
edited

We will need to add upper bounds to the existing 2.0 service definitions

You mean the existing 2.0 libraries already uploaded to Hackage? No tooling for that unfortunately, everything died in the Bazel fire.

The extension itself could go also into each service library's cabal file under a if/ghc conditional to ensure forwards/backwards compat?

@endgame
Copy link
Collaborator Author

endgame commented Jan 9, 2024

We will need to add upper bounds to the existing 2.0 service definitions

You mean the existing 2.0 libraries already uploaded to Hackage? No tooling for that unfortunately, everything died in the Bazel fire.

Yes, and potentially pre-2.0 service definitions also, because they won't compile with new GHC for the same reason. I will see if I can chase down some information about Hackage's APIs.

The extension itself could go also into each service library's cabal file under a if/ghc conditional to ensure forwards/backwards compat?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If we declare {-# LANGUAGE DuplicateRecordFields #-} in the module for each product type as well as for Types.hs, we get code which works with both GHC >=9.8 as well as <9.8.

@brendanhay
Copy link
Owner

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If we declare {-# LANGUAGE DuplicateRecordFields #-} in the module for each product type as well as for Types.hs, we get code which works with both GHC >=9.8 as well as <9.8.

I misunderstood until I read the linked gitlab issue.

@Bodigrim
Copy link
Contributor

We will need to add upper bounds to the existing 2.0 service definitions because they don't build with GHC 9.8. Do you have any tooling to help with this?

One can use hackage-cli to make batch revisions.

@endgame endgame closed this in c604b8f Feb 23, 2024
@endgame endgame reopened this Feb 23, 2024
@ysangkok
Copy link
Contributor

ysangkok commented Apr 3, 2024

@endgame What is needed to progress on this issue?

@endgame endgame added this to the 2.1 milestone Apr 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@brendanhay brendanhay brendanhay approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
2.1
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Compilation failures with GHC 9.8
4 participants
@endgame @brendanhay @Bodigrim @ysangkok