Is clc-stackage up to date?

[googleson78]

I followed the instructions in the readme while trying out a change to base, but I got a bunch of failures (after building ghc from the ghc-9.4 branch) which seem to be entirely unrelated to my change.

Can anyone confirm if they've successfully used clc-stackage from c6dda59 while also using a ghc built from ghc-9.4(which is currently a213d3676550a0e4d542172de539c0cfa2662431)?

[tbidne]

I'm fairly certain there have been successful builds since my changes. At least there have been several accepted clc proposals that passed an impact assessment (e.g. one, two, three).

I'll try again myself, though I expect the nix issues to resurface. This issue looks like it could be relevant.

Incidentally, it may be a good idea to move to 9.6 as nightly now exceeds lts for number of packages.

[Bodigrim]

@tbidne I'd love to migrate to 9.6 fairly soon. I think crypton{,ite} universe can use a week or two to catch up on Stackage, but otherwise I'd massively appreciate a PR.

[konsumlamm]

I'm fairly certain there have been successful builds since my changes. At least there have been several accepted clc proposals that passed an impact assessment (e.g. one, two, three).

Note that while haskell/core-libraries-committee#158 passed impact assessment, the clc-stackage build actually failed, see haskell/core-libraries-committee#158 (comment).

[mixphix]

It's kind of difficult to run impact assessments for proposals when this library is not kept in sync with the latest compiler version (off of which new MRs will need to branch).

[Bodigrim]

@mixphix sorry, I've been slow recently. I hope to land #16 soon.

[Bodigrim]

Thanks to @tbidne, it is up-to-date now.