Skip to content

Let cabal-ghc901.project be cabal.project.local #2241

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.

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

Closed
wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

jneira
Copy link
Member

@jneira jneira commented Sep 24, 2021

  • The intent of the change is let users do cp cabal-ghc901.project cabal.project.local to make the workflow smoother
    • but the file can be used in its own as before
  • To do so the packages should be uncommented (as they are so in main cabal.project) and the packages without support for ghc-9 should be make buildable with allow-newer (thanks to @gbaz for the suggestion)

@pepeiborra
Copy link
Collaborator

Can we just replace cabal.project with cabal-ghc901.project ?

@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 24, 2021

Can we just replace cabal.project with cabal-ghc901.project ?

🤔 hmm i had not thought in this possibility, but it would be right one if it is possible, will try, thanks!

@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 24, 2021

Possible caveats:

  • Source repository packages not compatible with older versions of ghc. I think it is not the case
  • Allow newers causing build errors
  • Allow newer shadowing errors wich will arise when the version will be released in hackage
  • we lose the hls flags to restrict which plugins are being built

But it worths to investigate

@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 24, 2021

Can we just replace cabal.project with cabal-ghc901.project ?

But maybe we could merge this as is? merge both cabal.project is not trivial

@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 24, 2021

Other alternative is convert cabal-ghc901.project in cabal-ghc901.local and remove duplication

@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 24, 2021

Other alternative is convert cabal-ghc901.project in cabal-ghc901.local and remove duplication

I think it will be the best option, implementing

@pepeiborra
Copy link
Collaborator

Other alternative is convert cabal-ghc901.project in cabal-ghc901.local and remove duplication

I think it will be the best option, implementing

This might break ghcup /cc @maerwald

Copy link
Member

@hasufell hasufell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ci.sh needs to be fixed

@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 25, 2021

@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 25, 2021

@hasufell finally i've kept the CABAL_PROJECT in the script, maybe it is neededin the future

@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 25, 2021

I ha

Testing gitlab here: https://gitlab.haskell.org/jneira/haskell-language-server/-/jobs/796348

.gitlab/ci.sh: line 33: CABAL_PROJECT: unbound variable
Cleaning up file based variables 00:01
ERROR: Job failed: exit code 

ugh

@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 29, 2021

Other alternative is convert cabal-ghc901.project in cabal-ghc901.local and remove duplication

I think it will be the best option, implementing

This might break ghcup /cc @maerwald

do you refer to ghcup compile hls?

@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 29, 2021

it seems ci is ignoring the copied cabal.project.local and it is trying to build the disabled plugins anyways

@jneira jneira marked this pull request as draft September 29, 2021 09:37
@jneira
Copy link
Member Author

jneira commented Sep 29, 2021

Not sure if the deduplication worths change the status quo: the gitlab script assumes this is the way we give support for new ghc's nd ghcup compile hls has --cabal-project to use it too (you would have to download manually the cabal-ghcx.project.local)
So i am gonna close it, sorry for the time spend on this

@jneira jneira closed this Sep 29, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants