2026/02/23

Newest at the top

2026-02-23 23:16:11 +0100__monty__(~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving)
2026-02-23 23:15:34 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2026-02-23 23:15:06 +0100polykernel_polykernel
2026-02-23 23:15:05 +0100polykernel(~polykerne@user/polykernel) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2026-02-23 23:12:21 +0100polykernel_(~polykerne@user/polykernel) polykernel
2026-02-23 23:07:44 +0100peterbecich(~Thunderbi@71.84.33.135) peterbecich
2026-02-23 23:06:59 +0100 <int-e> Oh I meant it could be broken specifically because of a change in base.
2026-02-23 23:06:36 +0100 <Clint> if the dependencies get fixed then you'd be excluding it for no reason
2026-02-23 23:05:49 +0100 <int-e> Leary: It could build but still be broken. (Not very likely, but it would be a reason to exclude 4.22)
2026-02-23 23:05:34 +0100 <Leary> I don't know, accurately representing buildability? I'm leaning towards allowing 4.22, I'm just not sure I should.
2026-02-23 23:05:00 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2026-02-23 23:02:15 +0100CiaoSen(~Jura@2a02:8071:64e1:da0:5a47:caff:fe78:33db) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2026-02-23 23:01:57 +0100 <Clint> what purpose would that serve?
2026-02-23 23:00:12 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2026-02-23 22:57:52 +0100emmanuelux(~em@user/emmanuelux) emmanuelux
2026-02-23 22:56:10 +0100 <Leary> Suppose I have a package that fails to build with base 4.22 but succeeds with `--allow-newer=all:base`, i.e. only because its dependencies require revision to allow it. Should its bounds exclude 4.22?
2026-02-23 22:54:56 +0100target_i(~target_i@user/target-i/x-6023099) (Quit: leaving)
2026-02-23 22:54:27 +0100takuan(~takuan@d8D86B9E9.access.telenet.be) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2026-02-23 22:51:32 +0100marinelli(~weechat@gateway/tor-sasl/marinelli) marinelli
2026-02-23 22:51:13 +0100marinelli(~weechat@gateway/tor-sasl/marinelli) (Remote host closed the connection)
2026-02-23 22:49:41 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2026-02-23 22:48:42 +0100c_wraith(~c_wraith@adjoint.us) c_wraith
2026-02-23 22:47:57 +0100c_wraith(~c_wraith@adjoint.us) (Server closed connection)
2026-02-23 22:45:34 +0100bggd_(~bgg@2a01:e0a:fd5:f510:ad7c:fa54:e40d:9544)
2026-02-23 22:44:50 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2026-02-23 22:43:33 +0100ljdarj(~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) ljdarj
2026-02-23 22:43:01 +0100pavonia(~user@user/siracusa) siracusa
2026-02-23 22:41:31 +0100st_aldini(~Thunderbi@136.48.46.187) st_aldini
2026-02-23 22:39:16 +0100 <lambdabot> "*Exception: *Exception: *Exception: *Exception: *Exception: *Exception: *Ex...
2026-02-23 22:39:14 +0100 <tomsmeding> > fix error
2026-02-23 22:39:12 +0100 <tomsmeding> yeah Foldable (,) is good; I guess there is also the classic
2026-02-23 22:38:39 +0100ljdarj(~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) (Quit: ljdarj)
2026-02-23 22:38:25 +0100 <EvanR> or length of that is 1
2026-02-23 22:37:42 +0100jmcantrell_jmcantrell
2026-02-23 22:36:37 +0100 <lambdabot> 2
2026-02-23 22:36:35 +0100 <EvanR> > sum (1,2)
2026-02-23 22:36:20 +0100 <tomsmeding> better
2026-02-23 22:36:15 +0100 <lambdabot> Sum {getSum = 2}
2026-02-23 22:36:13 +0100 <EvanR> > fold (Sum 1, Sum 2)
2026-02-23 22:34:31 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2026-02-23 22:34:08 +0100 <tomsmeding> does that count as one?
2026-02-23 22:34:03 +0100 <yahb2> ()
2026-02-23 22:34:03 +0100 <tomsmeding> % mempty
2026-02-23 22:32:23 +0100 <tomsmeding> nope, unfortunately
2026-02-23 22:31:44 +0100ljdarj(~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) ljdarj
2026-02-23 22:30:26 +0100morj(~morj@user/morj) (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2026-02-23 22:29:28 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2026-02-23 22:28:06 +0100ljdarj(~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2026-02-23 22:28:04 +0100 <EvanR> I was hoping he was going to show some haskell wats
2026-02-23 22:26:14 +0100tromp(~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:1a7:fa86:12e2:7e3d)