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

ghc: make EM_CACHE absolute #302887

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 9, 2024

Conversation

sgrb
Copy link
Contributor

@sgrb sgrb commented Apr 9, 2024

Description of changes

ghc-9.8 with js backend (ghcjs platform) fails to compile (at least with emscripten-3.1.51) if EM_CACHE is relative, producing cache locking errors. mktemp outputs relative path, so we need realpath here to make it absolute

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:
  • 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/)
  • 24.05 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 and 23.11 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
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

emscripten-3.1.51 fails to compile code (with cache locking problems) if
EM_CACHE is relative.
@sternenseemann sternenseemann changed the base branch from master to haskell-updates April 9, 2024 20:18
@sternenseemann sternenseemann merged commit 8677271 into NixOS:haskell-updates Apr 9, 2024
8 of 9 checks passed
@sternenseemann
Copy link
Member

Thanks! I confirmed this solves the build problem with #302552 applied. We'll just have to wait for #302552 to propagate via staging.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants