Closed Bodigrim closed 3 months ago
Huh, yes, thank you. Either the hackage-repo-tool
is not needed any more or the rest of CI is skipping tests that would require it. Either case is bad and this should stop a CI run, which would alert us to the problem.
There's a comment somewhere in (IIRC) validate.sh
saying that it's optional and tests that require it will be skipped.
It also says that hackage-repo-tool
is known to be fiddly to get installed properly.
Confirmed, it's deliberate: https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/master/.github/workflows/validate.yml#L123-L130
TL;DR: "We want to keep this in the loop but we don't want to fail if hackage-repo-tool breaks or fails to support a newer GHC version."
Oh, phew, so it's not high priority after all. Downgrading. Thank you.
I've been trying to build Stack with GHC 9.10.1. It compiles with hackage-security-0.6.2.6
(which ships with GHC 9.10.1) if that package's upper bound on dependency template-haskell < 2.22
is ignored (GHC 9.10.1 ships with template-haskell-2.22.0.0
).
@mpilgrem: thank you for the report. @andreasabel: shall we relax the bound on Hackage (and in the repo)?
@geekosaur: which version bumps exactly in hackage-security do you need for cabal 3.12.1.0? Only the template-haskell bump or anything more?
I've been advised that, since we don't actually care about bootstraps for branches other than master
, I should move on without it. That said, I bodged a --allow-newer=hackage-security:template-haskell
into the command that generates the initial build plan and it succeeded for 9.10.1, so that should be it.
@Mikolaj could you pleae go ahead and make a revision? Current situation is not the end of the world, but very annoying.
Yes, sure. I did
Changed the library component's library dependency on 'template-haskell' from
>=2.13 && <2.22
to
>=2.13 && <2.23
for
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/hackage-security-0.6.2.6
Is that it? If so, let's please not close this ticket until this is reflected in the repo (it's not, currently).
Looks good, thanks.
@andreasabel: oh, cool, thank you.
From Cabal CI logs:
(Surprisingly Cabal CI carries on as if nothing has happened. @Mikolaj is it something to look at?)