hosc-0.21 support #1105
hosc-0.21 support #1105
Conversation
|
Ah! CI shows, there is still a problem with hocs's bytestring version dependency using older GHCs: |
|
Ah, that explains why it still isn't compiling for me. I was hoping increasing lower bounds for I think Rohan is happy to change the dependencies for hosc on hackage further (this is possible without doing a new hosc release). But I'm not sure if this helps? Perhaps we just have to say that ghc 9.x has been around for several years and we drop support for 8.x Normally I use a recent ghc via ghcup, I just happened to be using the system version on my laptop for some reason. Debian stable is on ghc 9.x, my laptop install (some linux mint) must be based on oldstable. @cleary do you have a view on this wrt the ansible-based install? |
Ubuntu 20.04 is my only supported release with ghc 8.x provided, I'm happy to drop support for that now (there are still 2 more supported lts releases) |
|
@yaxu While dropping support for 8.x seems reasonable, I'm not sure if 9.0.2 has a similar error regarding at least the unix package:
|
|
Ok have asked Rohan about applying the patch for backward compatibility see you |
|
hosc 0.21.1 released! seems a bit happier now? |
|
I‘d guess the Nix builds fail because there is no hosc-0.21 Nix packages? I just wonder why the working Nix build is able to use hosc 0.20, although we specify >0.20. |
|
I've not got my head around nix at all I'm afraid.. |
|
Me neither. But by asking some questions on the haskell irc I found out, that there is a script which should update haskell modules in Nix every few hours or at least auto generate PRs that will be merged every few days. So probably waiting one or two days will solve this for us. :) |
|
i am using the nix flake, and am happy to test and update it again once hosc 0.21 reaches nixpkgs |
|
Great thanks! Time to merge? |
|
Depends what is more important, I guess. To get a new Tidal release done to free hosc‘s way into stackage or don‘t break the Nix package/install. As I understand only one can be chosen currently? In favor of merging and preparing a release could be that Nix also looks at Stackage packages, when Hackage packages are not found — but I am really not sure about the whole Nix process. |
|
while we wait for nixpkgs, there is also the option of bringing back the hosc override in flake.nix that was removed in #1098 (updated to 0.21, of course) |
|
I don't know about nix, but I understand everything on stackage comes from hackage. It's like a curated set of hackage package version numbers that work together. So we upload to stackage, then do a PR to remove the upper bounds on hosc in stackage. No rush anyway, tidal is the only thing using hosc on stackage. |
|
Maybe @mitchmindtree has advice as maintainer of https://github.com/mitchmindtree/tidalcycles.nix |
Adds a flake input for `hosc` as 0.21 isn't yet on nixpkgs. Rather than waiting for a nixpkgs PR to update the stackage list, this overrides `hosc` package with the last v0.21 commit from the hosc repo.
|
Ahh I think @ahihi's right, the easiest approach might be to re-add the |
fix: Add `hosc` input to nix flake to support v0.21. Update nixpkgs flake input.
|
thanks @ahihi, @mitchmindtree and all! Nix and all non-experimental GHC builds are working now :) Time to merge! |
|
Thanks all ! |
I probably won't be able to keep this tempo up. 😅
However, this compiles and was tested by sending patterns from the REPL to SuperCollider. Tidal is still controllable via OSC (tested with Pure Data) too.
edit: would solve #1103