haskellPackages.mason: unbreak

[4z3]

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• 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/)
• Nixpkgs 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 25.05 Nixpkgs Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
• NixOS 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 25.05 NixOS Release notes)
  • (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
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md, pkgs/README.md, maintainers/README.md and other contributing documentation in corresponding paths.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[maralorn]

Hey, thanks for the contribution!

Ideally you could run maintainers/scripts/haskell/regenerate-hackage-packages.sh as part of your commit.

Also maybe you can put a date and the affected mason version in the comment. Bonus points for adding a link to an upstream issue about the restrictive upper bound.

[wolfgangwalther]

@4z3 are you still interested in going forward with this PR?

[4z3]

@wolfgangwalther sure. I've ran maintainers/scripts/haskell/regenerate-hackage-packages.sh and updated the PR to also tell the date. I haven't checked which exact mason versions are affected, but looking at the history of pkgs/development/haskell-modules/configuration-common.nix, this doesn't seem to be an information usually added anyway. Also I haven't check if there's any upstream issue.

[wolfgangwalther]

There was already an upstream PR, which had been merged but no revision / release made: fumieval/mason#14

I adjusted the comments accordingly and added a "warn after version" thing, because this will surely be fixed whenever there is a new version released.

I also fixed the commit message for the first commit - this was not a nixfmt issue, but a previous PR that didn't run the script after adding a maintainer. The change is not just formatting, but actually adds a maintainer.

[wolfgangwalther]

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 425403
Commit: a7cb308cabcf812284c2246d2fca4a446a40a09e

---

x86_64-linux

✅ 3 packages built:

• haskell.package-list
• haskellPackages.mason
• haskellPackages.mason.doc

---

aarch64-linux

✅ 3 packages built:

• haskell.package-list
• haskellPackages.mason
• haskellPackages.mason.doc

---

x86_64-darwin

✅ 3 packages built:

• haskell.package-list
• haskellPackages.mason
• haskellPackages.mason.doc

---

aarch64-darwin

✅ 3 packages built:

• haskell.package-list
• haskellPackages.mason
• haskellPackages.mason.doc

[4z3]

@wolfgangwalther thanks