GHC >= 9.0?

GHC >= 9.0?

[jgart]

Hi, what's the status on packaging GHC >= 9.0?

Is anyone working on that?

all best,

jgart

Re: GHC >= 9.0?

[itd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 356 bytes --]

Hi,

jgart <jgart@dismail.de> writes:

> Hi, what's the status on packaging GHC >= 9.0?

`ghc-next` has version 9.0.2; https://issues.guix.gnu.org/58000

Attached GHC versions build (/ function) as well, but are not polished.
(I am not actively working on those.  I am more interested in
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/54729 at the moment.)

Best regards
itd

[-- Attachment #2: haskell-ghc.scm --]
[-- Type: application/vnd.lotus-screencam, Size: 4497 bytes --]

Re: GHC >= 9.0?

[Lars-Dominik Braun]

Hi jgart,

> Hi, what's the status on packaging GHC >= 9.0?
> Is anyone working on that?
there is commit 7a9350c208be14484d4fa6d90c0169f40fcf500e on wip-haskell,
which adds GHC 9.0.2. No further work has been done to update the Haskell
ecosystem. Help is welcome though, because it’s very time-consuming.

Lars

Re: GHC >= 9.0?

[Justin Garcia]

Hi,

I have tentative work for packaging GHC 9.2.4 under this repository:

https://github.com/akashi-moe/akashi

It uses the Hadrian build system (also packaged) as Makefile support is being deprecated in future GHC versions -- the Make-based system is also super inconsistent in my experience.

I was able to build it with Haddocks disabled on my personal x64 machine (they take forever, even after letting them run overnight) but I ran into some oddities with `ghc` needing Linux headers to compile a basic program, but it could just be that I haven't specified the dependencies properly :D

There's also the case of some binaries using relative linking so the `validate-runpath` phase fails.

> The lambdas must flow.
regards, purefunctor