The reason why this does not work is not that we can't built static
objects, we can, but we can't use `-staticlib` on GHC on windows.
`-staticlib` rolls all dependencies into a combined archive. While this
would work on windows if we used gnu ar and MRI script, GHC can't rely
on GNU ar, and as such has a quick archive concatenation module for GNU
and BSD archives only.
This is because they are just for Setup.hs, so they are just used at build time
and completely isolated from the normal components' dependencies.
This was previous implemented in 8a8f0408cd, but
reverted in e69c7f5641 because it broken
setup-depends non-cross in haskell shell environments (custom Setup.hs in cross
shell environments has never worked). This version adds a special native
exception to avoid that breakage.
Just like with the other `--extra-*` flags, cc/ld-wrapper already handles
this, but we need to make Cabal aware so that the haskell builds have
the correct metadata.
The purpose of this argument is to allow you to get at the derivation (rather
than it's env) even when in the evaluation context of a nix-shell invocation.
Some of the new tests need the `nix` executable on `PATH`.
One also needs `hpack`, but we really don’t want to embiggen (heh) the closure
because of that.
We need to add the STACK_IN_NIX_EXTRA_ARGS hook in configurePhase also to ensure we get the right args when calling ```nix-build``` (as opposed to nix-shell).
The `haskell-gi` build fails its doctests because of a missing
library; I'm not 100% convinced that setting it to `dontCheck` is the
right thing to do, but I don't have a better idea at the moment.
The `gi-gdkx11` build fails because, surprise, Gdk-X11 isn't found; by
looking around in my store, I found that that that library seems to
live in gtk3 these days; this override is just a stop-gap, though,
I've also submitted the change to cabal2nix that I believe will fix
the automatic generation of the package in the future.
blank-canvas-0.6.3 depends on base-compat-batteries-0.10, which
depends on base-compat-0.10. This conflicts with the rest of the LTS
set, which uses base-compat-0.9. No base-compat-batteries-0.9 exists.
blank-canvas-0.6.2 only depends on base-compat >= 0.8 && < 0.10.
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
(cherry picked from commit ba52ae5048)
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
