Bump cabal-bootstrap-gen to GHC 9.4.4 ecosystem

[nmeum]

I updated the dependencies in the .cabal bootstrap file and sightly adjusted src/Main.hs for the I.riCabal → I.riCabalHash change. I successfully bootstrapped Cabal on Alpine Linux Edge with these changes. I am new to Cabal so let me know if this needs any adjustments.

Fixes #8613

---

Please include the following checklist in your PR:

• Patches conform to the coding conventions.
• Any changes that could be relevant to users have been recorded in the changelog.
• The documentation has been updated, if necessary.

Please also shortly describe how you tested your change. Bonus points for added tests!

[robx]

This should probably add GHC 9.4.4 to BOOTSTRAP_VERSIONS in the top-level Makefile and to .github/workflows/bootstrap.yml.

[Mikolaj]

@nmeum: BTW, please feel free to compare with old PRs that update the generator and/or generate files for new GHCs.

[nmeum]

@nmeum: BTW, please feel free to compare with old PRs that update the generator and/or generate files for new GHCs.

I tried to follow #8403 but somehow this PR didn't include changes to the top-level Makefile and the CI. I just updated the PR accordingly in the hope that I modified these files correctly.

[robx]

This looks good to me, though I haven't tested it locally. Bootstrap CI passes so the generated files should be fine at least. (CI doesn't cover bootstrap-gen itself.)

[Mikolaj]

Let me rebase so that CI unbreaks (we worked around some infrastructure breakage).

@nmeum: did you perchance test the new scripts with GHCs other than 9.4.4? Ideally with all listed in the Makefile? I guess it's fine if they produce differenct bootstrap files than in the repo, but a smoke test would be comparing if the sizes are similar.

After your are satisfied about your due diligence, please kindly set the merge_me label.

[Mikolaj]

@mergify rebase

[mergify]

⚠️ This pull request got rebased on behalf of a random user of the organization.
This behavior will change on the 1st February 2023, Mergify will pick the author of the pull request instead.

To get the future behavior now, you can configure bot_account options (e.g.: bot_account: { author } or update_bot_account: { author }.

Or you can create a dedicated github account for squash and rebase operations, and use it in different bot_account options.

[mergify]

rebase

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased

[Mikolaj]

@mergify rebase

[mergify]

⚠️ This pull request got rebased on behalf of a random user of the organization.
This behavior will change on the 1st February 2023, Mergify will pick the author of the pull request instead.

To get the future behavior now, you can configure bot_account options (e.g.: bot_account: { author } or update_bot_account: { author }.

Or you can create a dedicated github account for squash and rebase operations, and use it in different bot_account options.

[mergify]

rebase

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased

[nmeum]

Given that this passes CI and has been approved: Do you need me to do anything else to get this merged or is it just a question of time? :)

[Kleidukos]

@nmeum All good on our side, you may set the label merge-me and remove the attention: needs-review label :)

[Mikolaj]

@nmeum: as as @Kleidukos said. And feel free to read CONTRIBUTING.md if in doubt.

BTW, did you catch the below comment of mine?

@nmeum: did you perchance test the new scripts with GHCs other than 9.4.4? Ideally with all listed in the Makefile? I guess it's fine if they produce differenct bootstrap files than in the repo, but a smoke test would be comparing if the sizes are similar.

After your are satisfied about your due diligence, please kindly set the merge_me label.

[nmeum]

BTW, did you catch the below comment of mine?

@nmeum: did you perchance test the new scripts with GHCs other than 9.4.4? Ideally with all listed in the Makefile? I guess it's fine if they produce differenct bootstrap files than in the repo, but a smoke test would be comparing if the sizes are similar.

Sorry, I somehow missed your comment. I only tested this with GHC 9.4.4. I am using this changeset for bootstrapping Cabal for the Alpine Linux Cabal package and hence have only tested this with the GHC version available in the Alpine repositories (9.4.4).

[Mikolaj]

I only tested this with GHC 9.4.4. I am using this changeset for bootstrapping Cabal for the Alpine Linux Cabal package and hence have only tested this with the GHC version available in the Alpine repositories (9.4.4).

That's fine. If somebody manages to test during the 2 days delay period after setting the label, it'd be great. But if not, we still have a long time before cabal 3.10.2 or 3.12, so we may hear from other boostrappers and fix, as necessary.

[mergify]

⚠️ This pull request got rebased on behalf of a random user of the organization.
This behavior will change on the 1st February 2023, Mergify will pick the author of the pull request instead.

To get the future behavior now, you can configure bot_account options (e.g.: bot_account: { author } or update_bot_account: { author }.

Or you can create a dedicated github account for squash and rebase operations, and use it in different bot_account options.

[Mikolaj]

I wonder if we should backport this to 3.10? I guess so. Let me create a backport PR and then ask people.

[Mikolaj]

@mergify backport 3.10

[mergify]

backport 3.10

✅ Backports have been created

• #8774 Bump cabal-bootstrap-gen to GHC 9.4.4 ecosystem (backport #8720) has been created for branch 3.10