haskellPackages.bytepatch: unmark broken

[raehik]

Description of changes

Fixes building one of my packages bytepatch. Minor dependency bump (metadata revision). Fixes the package as of commercialhaskell/all-cabal-hashes@211cbba .

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 23.05 Release Notes (or backporting 22.11 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • (Release notes changes) Ran nixos/doc/manual/md-to-db.sh to update generated release notes
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[raehik]

Do I add the regenerated hackage-packages.nix here? I suppose the CI should fail without it. Edit: I've snuck a temporary commit bumping the Hackage set in so we can watch lights go green together. (For next time, what's the regular procedure here?)

[raehik]

I'll simplify by removing the temporary Hackage bump commit, marking this as WIP, and being a little more patient for a Hackage bump. Then when that happens I'll rebase and mark as ready and look for the green checkmarks :)

[cdepillabout]

Thanks a lot, merged into #213089 and I've regenerated the hackage packages (so bytepatch will actually be marked as unbroken).