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.

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

Support ghc 9.12 #522

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 6, 2024
Merged

Support ghc 9.12 #522

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 6, 2024

Conversation

erikd
Copy link
Contributor

@erikd erikd commented Dec 6, 2024

Needed a cabal.project file containing the following to make it compile:

packages:
  .

tests: True

if impl (ghc >= 9.12)
  allow-newer:
    , hashable:base
    , integer-logarithms:base
    , integer-logarithms:ghc-prim
    , microlens-th:template-haskell
    , scientific:base
    , scientific:template-haskell
    , splitmix:base
    , time:template-haskell
    , unordered-containers:hashable
    , unordered-containers:template-haskell

@jtdaugherty
Copy link
Owner

Thank you! Any idea why the first CI build failed?

@erikd
Copy link
Contributor Author

erikd commented Dec 6, 2024

Thank you! Any idea why the first CI build failed?

I think its transient. I have touch the top commit and force pushed.

@erikd
Copy link
Contributor Author

erikd commented Dec 6, 2024

Damn, failed again. Its fails to find the required version of ghc (9.12.0.20241128) but I have updated a bunch of others like that and then were fine. Like this one erikd/system-linux-proc#12

@jtdaugherty
Copy link
Owner

There are two entries that build with the same version of GHC (9.10.0.20241128), but one is failing and one isn't (or at least it didn't on the initial build). Do you know the difference between them? I am inclined to remove the one that's failing if the other one continues to work.

@erikd
Copy link
Contributor Author

erikd commented Dec 6, 2024

I have no idea why there are two. 😕

@jtdaugherty jtdaugherty merged commit 732b659 into jtdaugherty:master Dec 6, 2024
8 of 9 checks passed
@jtdaugherty
Copy link
Owner

Okay, thanks for this patch. I'll keep an eye on it and see about removing one if it's consistently failing for environment reasons.

@erikd
Copy link
Contributor Author

erikd commented Dec 6, 2024

Thanks @jtdaugherty . Would appreciate a Hackage metadata edit as well, unless you plan a new release in the near future.

@jtdaugherty
Copy link
Owner

@erikd I made a metadata update for 2.6.

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.

2 participants