Skip to content

CI: add GHC 8.6.5 to validate-old-ghcs #11074

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

CI: add GHC 8.6.5 to validate-old-ghcs #11074

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+4 −4

Conversation

ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

fix #11073

Template B: This PR does not modify behaviour or interface

E.g. the PR only touches documentation or tests, does refactorings, etc.

Include the following checklist in your PR:

  • Patches conform to the coding conventions.
  • Is this a PR that fixes CI? If so, it will need to be backported to older cabal release branches (ask maintainers for directions).

@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever requested review from ffaf1 and geekosaur July 15, 2025 16:12
@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever added merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge and removed attention: needs-review labels Jul 16, 2025
@mergify mergify bot added ready and waiting Mergify is waiting out the cooldown period merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days labels Jul 16, 2025
mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 18, 2025
@mergify
Merge of #11074
efd96d2
@mergify mergify bot mentioned this pull request Jul 18, 2025
Closed
86 tasks
@mergify Mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Jul 18, 2025

This pull request has been removed from the queue for the following reason: checks failed.

The merge conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks:

You can check the last failing draft PR here: #11079.

You may have to fix your CI before adding the pull request to the queue again.
If you update this pull request, to fix the CI, it will automatically be requeued once the queue conditions match again.
If you think this was a flaky issue instead, you can requeue the pull request, without updating it, by posting a @mergifyio requeue comment.

@mergify mergify bot added the waiting too long automatically set by Mergify to trigger a warning label Jul 22, 2025
@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Jul 22, 2025

The error is

"[150 of 150] Compiling Distribution.Simple ( src/Distribution/Simple.hs, /Users/runner/work/cabal/cabal/testdb/intree/dist-newstyle/build/aarch64-osx/ghc-9.6.7/Cabal-3.17.0.0/build/Distribution/Simple.o, /Users/runner/work/cabal/cabal/testdb/intree/dist-newstyle/build/aarch64-osx/ghc-9.6.7/Cabal-3.17.0.0/build/Distribution/Simple.dyn_o )
fatal error: /Applications/Xcode_15.4.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ranlib: can't write to output file (Input/output error)
/Applications/Xcode_15.4.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ar: internal ranlib command failed
Error: [Cabal-7125]>

Restarting...

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Jul 22, 2025

@mergify rebase

@mergify Mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Jul 22, 2025

rebase

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased

@Mikolaj Mikolaj force-pushed the ulysses4ever-patch-3 branch from cc0cabe to 8c46f48 Compare July 22, 2025 16:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@geekosaur geekosaur geekosaur approved these changes

@ffaf1 ffaf1 ffaf1 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge ready and waiting Mergify is waiting out the cooldown period waiting too long automatically set by Mergify to trigger a warning
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

CI doesn't test GHC 8.6.5 in the "old GHCs" section but it should
4 participants
@ulysses4ever @Mikolaj @geekosaur @ffaf1