Skip to content

ghc: use available bootstrap binaries on aarch64-musl #451420

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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
yuyuyureka wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

ghc: use available bootstrap binaries on aarch64-musl #451420

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 9 additions & 3 deletions pkgs/top-level/haskell-packages.nix
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -123,7 +123,9 @@ in
ghc98 = compiler.ghc984;
ghc9101 = callPackage ../development/compilers/ghc/9.10.1.nix {
bootPkgs =
if stdenv.buildPlatform.isDarwin then
if stdenv.buildPlatform.isAarch64 && stdenv.buildPlatform.isMusl then
bb.packages.ghc984Binary
else if stdenv.buildPlatform.isDarwin then
Comment on lines +126 to +128
Copy link
Contributor

@wolfgangwalther wolfgangwalther Oct 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

According to my tests in #444249, this didn't work for 9.10.1.

In any case, #444249 includes this change, I think we should go forward with that instead.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@yuyuyureka yuyuyureka Oct 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fair. I built pkgsMusl.pandoc for testing, which seems to use 9.10.3.
I would argue that this would be handled correctly by marking 9.10.1 as broken when bootPkgs.ghc is 9.8.4.

I was not aware of #444249. It indeed seems nicer, however my lack of Haskell experience makes it difficult to judge how likely it is to get merged soon. I would like to restore the pkgsMusl.ghc build again, which was originally made possible in #395724.

Copy link
Contributor

@wolfgangwalther wolfgangwalther Oct 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The other PR is merged into staging. If you're OK with waiting for that, that should be enough. If you'd rather want to fix this on master in the meantime as well, we can do this PR as well.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@yuyuyureka yuyuyureka Oct 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can wait for staging :)

# it seems like the GHC 9.6.* bindists are built with a different
# toolchain than we are using (which I'm guessing from the fact
# that 9.6.4 bindists pass linker flags our ld doesn't support).
Expand All @@ -141,7 +143,9 @@ in
};
ghc9102 = callPackage ../development/compilers/ghc/9.10.2.nix {
bootPkgs =
if stdenv.buildPlatform.isDarwin then
if stdenv.buildPlatform.isAarch64 && stdenv.buildPlatform.isMusl then
bb.packages.ghc984Binary
else if stdenv.buildPlatform.isDarwin then
# it seems like the GHC 9.6.* bindists are built with a different
# toolchain than we are using (which I'm guessing from the fact
# that 9.6.4 bindists pass linker flags our ld doesn't support).
Expand All @@ -159,7 +163,9 @@ in
};
ghc9103 = callPackage ../development/compilers/ghc/9.10.3.nix {
bootPkgs =
if stdenv.buildPlatform.isDarwin then
if stdenv.buildPlatform.isAarch64 && stdenv.buildPlatform.isMusl then
bb.packages.ghc984Binary
else if stdenv.buildPlatform.isDarwin then
# it seems like the GHC 9.6.* bindists are built with a different
# toolchain than we are using (which I'm guessing from the fact
# that 9.6.4 bindists pass linker flags our ld doesn't support).
Expand Down
Loading