I have the following instance of cabal hell:
(with ghc-7.8.3 built from source on x86_64 GNU/Linux,
and user-install: True in .cabal/config)
1) at some time, transformers-0.4.0.0 was installed (in user space, shadowing (?) transformers-0.3 from the global space)
2) later, several libraries pick transformers-0.4
3) then, I install hint, which depends on ghc, which depends on transformers-0.3, and which cannot be changed, since ghc is hard-wired.
result: I cannot use libraries from 2) and hint in one project.
As a work-around, I am putting constraint: transformers installed in .cabal/config, and rebuild. Is there a better way to handle this situation - or to avoid it in the first place?
Is there a better way to handle this situation.
No, your approach is sensible.
or to avoid it in the first place?
Tricky. Most people do not build stuff depending on ghc, so for them it makes sense to upgrade transformers etc. Therefore, your constraint is not a suitable default.
As Zeta writes: Sandboxes can help. If you had used sandboxes for your installations in (2), and used another sandbox for whatever tries to use both hint and (2), then it would simply build these dependencies dedicated for whatever you are building.
This comes at the expense of not sharing any space or build-time between the various things you are doing.
Related
Long story short, I'd like some guidance on what's the (best) way to have Haskell work on Archlinux.
By work I mean all, in terms of the ghci command line tool, installing packages I don't have - such as vector-space, which this answer to a question of mine refers to -, and any other thing that could be necessary to a Haskell obstinate learner.
Archlinux wikipage on Haskell lists three (alternative?) packages for making Haskell work on the system, namely ghc, cabal-install, and stack. I have the first and the third installed on my system, but I think I must have installed the latter later (unless it's a dependency to ghc) while tampering around (probably in relation to Vim as a Haskell IDE). Furthermore, I have a huge amount of haskell-* packages installed (why? Who knows? As a learner I must have come multiple times to the point of say uh, let's try this!).
Are there any pros and cons ("cons", ahah) about each of those packages?
Can they all be used with/without conflicts?
Does any of them make any other superfluous?
Is there anything else I should be aware of which I seem apparently ignorant about based of what I've written?
Arch Linux's choice of providing dynamically linked libraries in their packages tends to get in the way if you are looking to develop Haskell code. As an Arch user myself, my default advice would be to not use Arch's Haskell packages at all, and instead to install whatever you need through ghcup or Stack, starting from the guidance in their respective project pages.
You are basically there. Try the following:
ghci: If you get the Haskell REPL then it works.
stack ghci: Again you should get the Haskell REPL. There are a lot of versions of GHC, and stack manages these along with the libraries. Whenever you use a new version of GHC stack will download it and create a local installation for you.
stack is independent of your Linux package manager. The trouble is that your distro will only have the Haskell libraries it actually needs for any applications it has integrated, and once you step outside of those you are in dependency hell with no support. So I recommend that you avoid your distro Haskell packages. stack does everything you need.
If you installed stack from your Linux package manager then you might want to uninstall it and use a personal copy (i.e. in your ~/.local directory) instead. Then you can always say stack update to check you have the latest version.
Once you have stack going, create a project by saying stack new my-project simple. Then go into the project folder and start editing. You can work with just a .hs file and GHC if you really want, but its painful; you will do much better with stack, even if you are just messing around.
You'll also need an editor. Basic functionality like syntax highlighting is available in pretty much everything, but once you get past Towers of Hanoi you are going to want something better. I use Atom with ide-haskell-ghcide. This uses the Haskell Language Server under the hood, so you will need to install that too. I know a bunch of other editors have HLS support, but I don't have experience with them.
I've seen this message pop up a couple times when running cabal v1-install with a suggestion to use --force-reinstalls to install anyway. As I don't know that much about cabal, I'm not sure why a package would break due to a reinstall. Could someone please fill me in on the backstory behind this message?
Note for future readers: this discussion is about historical matters. For practical purposes, you can safely ignore all of that if you are using Cabal 3.
The problem had to do with transitive dependencies. For instance, suppose we had the following three packages installed at specific versions:
A-1.0;
B-1.0, which depends on A; and
C-1.0, which depends on B, but not explicitly on A.
Then, we would install A-1.1, which seemingly would work fine:
A-1.1 would be installed, but the older A-1.0 version would be kept around, solely for the sake of other packages built using it;
B-1.0 would keep using A-1.0; and
C-1.0 would keep using B-1.0.
However, there would be trouble if we, for whatever reason, attempted to reinstall B-1.0 (as opposed to, say, update to B-1.1):
A-1.1 and A-1.0 would still be available for other packages needing them;
B-1.0, however, would be rebuilt against A-1.1, there being no way of keeping around a second installation of the same version of B; and
C-1.0, which was built against the replaced B-1.0 (which depended on A-1.0), would now be broken.
v1-install provided a safeguard against this kind of dangerous reinstall. Using --force-reinstalls would disable that safeguard.
For a detailed explanation of the surrounding issues, see Albert Y. C. Lai's Storage and Identification of Cabalized Packages (in particular, the example I used here is essentially a summary of its Corollary: The Pigeon Drop Con section).
While Cabal 1, in its later versions, was able to, in the scenario above, detect that the reinstall changed B even though the version number remained the same (which is what made the safeguard possible), it couldn't keep around the two variants of B-1.0 simultaneously. Cabal 3, on the other hand, is able to do that, which eliminates the problem.
I am a little bit confused while reading about Cabal Hell, as the term is overloaded. I guess originally Cabal Hell referred to the diamond dependency problem, which was solved by restricting the build plan to have only a single version of any package in each build plan (two different versions of a package can't exist in a single build plan) as explained in this answer.
However, the term is also used in various other contexts. Such as destructive re-installations, incorrect package dependency boundaries (lower/upper version bounds), inconsistent environments ... (or any other error reported by Cabal).
Particular among these, I am confused about 1) destructive re-installations and 2) inconsistent environments? What do they mean, and how cabal new-build solves these problems (is it just sandboxing like cabal sandbox)? And what role ghc-pkg has to play here?
Any references or a simple example where these problems could be reproduced would be very appreciated.
Regarding "destructive re-installations": If I am not wrong, GHC has a package manager of itself (ghc-pkg), and the packages are installed as dynamically linkable libraries i.e: base depends on ghc-prim, so if ghc-prim is removed it will break base, am I right? And since GHC only allows one instance of a package with the same version, cabal install might register a newer build of the same (package, version) such that it breaks the dependents of the unregistered package. If the above understanding regarding "destructive re-installations" are correct; how does cabal new-build help here?
The only meaningful use of the term is the one given in the linked answer. Related are the follow-on problems from having lots of different packages in the global database, which can make encountering diamond dependencies more common, requiring destructive reinstalls to resolve, etc.
The other usages of the term are not helpful and just mean "problems somehow involving cabal."
That said, let me answer your other questions.
1) ghc-pkg is not a package manager, but rather a tool for managing ghc package databases. It is used by cabal to register packages into databases, and can be used by end-users to inspect the contents of the databases. Think of it as part of the underlying substrate provided by ghc, not a competing tool.
2) new-build eliminates and replaces the standard notion of a packagedb entirely. Instead of saying that a db consists of packages and versions, with at most one of each pair, instead a db consists of potentially many copies of packages at any given version, each with potentially different versions of its dependencies, all of which are managed in part by hash-addressing, so marked by a unique "fingerprint". This is called the store. When you new-build, cabal calculates a build plan irrespective of any previously installed dependencies, from scratch. If a particular fingerprint (consisting of a package, version, and the versions of all its dependencies, certain flags, etc) already exists in the store, then it makes use of it. If it does not, it calculates it.
As such, the only "diamond dependencies" that can occur are the truly insoluble ones, and not the ones occasioned by having fixed too-early (due to already-installed deps) some portion of the dependency tree.
tldr; you write "since GHC only allows one instance of a package with the same version" but new-build partially lifts this restriction in the store which allows the solver to produce better, more reproducible plans more often.
I am using alternative version numbering approach for my projects. I have encountered strange behavior by cabal and stack that does not allow me to fully enjoy benefits of this approach. Both cabal and stack enforce version to be of format Int.Int.Int, which does not cover the case of another version format I use for branches (0.x.x, 1.x.x, 1.0.x, etc).
If I have line version: 0.x.x in my .cabal file, I am getting Parse of field 'version' failed. error when running cabal build or Unable to parse cabal file {PROJECT_NAME}.cabal: NoParse "version" 5 when running stack init.
Is there a way to disable version parsing on cabal and stack commands? Is there a flag for it? Or do I have to request this kind of change (adding flags, disabling version parsing) from the developers of cabal and stack?
Why is there any parsing at all? How does it help with building a package? Does cabal or stack automatically increment build numbers on some event? If yes, where could I read more about this? How could I influence the way version numbering incrementation gets implemented in cabal and stack? I want developers of haskell packages take into account the possibility of alternative version numbering approaches.
PS. For all interested folks, I want to quickly summarize the idea behind "weird" version numbers, such as 0.x.x, 1.x.x, 1.0.x. I use the version numbers with x's to describe streamlines of development that allow code changes while such version numbers as 1.0.0, 1.1.0, 2.35.46 are used to describe frozen states of development (to be precise, they are used for released versions of software). Note that such version numbers as 0.x.0, 1.x.15, 2.x.23 are also possible (used for snapshots/builds of software) and they mean that codebase has been inherited from branches with version numbers 0.x.x, 1.x.x and 2.x.x correspondingly.
Why do I need such version numbers as 0.x.x, 1.x.x and 2.x.x at all? In brief, different number of x's mean branches of different types. For example, version number pattern N.x.x is used for support branches, while pattern N.M.x is used for release branches. Idea behind support branches is that they get created due to incompatibility of the corresponding codebases. Release branches get created due to feature freeze in corresponding codebase. For example, branches 1.0.x, 1.1.x, 1.2.x, ... get created as a result of feature freezes (or releases) in branch 1.x.x.
I know this is all confusing, but I worked hard to establish this version numbering approach and I continue working on awareness about the inconsistencies of version numbering through my presentations and other projects. This all makes sense once you think more about the pitfalls of semver approach (you can find detailed slideshare presentation on the matter following the link). But I do not want to defend it for now. For the time being, I just want cabal and stack to stop enforcing their, as I perceive them, unjustified rules to my project. Hope you can help me with that.
You can't. The version will be parsed to Version, which is:
data Version = PV0 {-# UNPACK #-} !Word64
| PV1 !Int [Int]
Stack uses Cabal as a library but has its own Version type:
newtype Version =
Version {unVersion :: Vector Word}
deriving (Eq,Ord,Typeable,Data,Generic,Store,NFData)
Neither cabal nor stack have a way to customize the parsing. You have to write your own variant of those programs if you want to use another version type. But then again, you're not winning anything at that point: neither Hackage nor Stackage will recognize your package's version.
So the 1.x.x isn't possible at the moment. You could exchange x with 99999999 or something similar to mitigate the problem. That being said, it's not clear what cabal install should then install. The 99999999 version? Or the latest stable variant?
If you can express the semantics, a discussion on the mailing list as well as a feature request might change the behaviour in the (far away) future, but for now, you either have to patch the programs yourself or use another numbering scheme.
Is there a way to disable version parsing on cabal and stack commands? Is there a flag for it?
No.
Or do I have to request this kind of change (adding flags, disabling version parsing) from the developers of cabal and stack?
You can of course ask, but there are so many outstanding issues that you are unlikely to get any traction. You will have to be very convincing -- convincing enough to overturn more than 20 years of experience that says the current versioning scheme is basically workable. Realistically, if you want this to happen you'll probably have to maintain a fork of these tools yourself, and provide an alternative place to host packages using this scheme.
Why is there any parsing at all? How does it help with building a package?
Packages specify dependencies, and for each dependency, specify what version ranges they work with. The build tools then use a constraint solver to choose a coherent set of package/version pairs to satisfy all the (transitive) dependencies. To do this, they must at a minimum be able to check whether a given version is in a given range -- which requires parsing the version number at least a little bit.
Does cabal or stack automatically increment build numbers on some event? If yes, where could I read more about this?
There is nothing automatic. But you should take a look at the Package Version Policy, which serves as a social contract between package maintainers. It lets one package maintainer say, "I am using bytestring version 0.10.0.1 and it seems to work. I'm being careful about qualifying all my bytestring imports; therefore I can specify a range like >=0.10 && <0.11 and be sure that things will just work, while giving the bytestring maintainer the ability to push security and efficiency updates to my users." without having to pore through the full documentation of bytestring and hope its maintainer had written about what his version numbers mean.
How could I influence the way version numbering incrementation gets implemented in cabal and stack?
As with your previous question about changing the way the community does things, I think modifications to the Package Versioning Policy are going to be quite difficult, especially changes as radical as you seem to be proposing here. The more radical the change, the more carefully motivated it will have to be to gain traction.
I honestly don't know what a reasonable place to take such motivation and discussion would be; perhaps the haskell-cafe mailing list or similar.
If I have a package with several executables, which I initially build using cabal build. Now I change one file that impacts just one executable, cabal seems to take about a second or two to examine each executable to see if it's impacted or not. On the other hand, make, given an equivalent number of executables and source files, will determine in a fraction of a second what needs to be recompiled. Why the huge difference? Is there a reason, cabal can't just build its own version of a makefile and go from there?
Disclaimer: I'm not familiar enough with Haskell or make internals to give technical specifics, but some web searching does offer some insight that lines up with my proposal (trying to avoid eliciting opinions by providing references). Also, I'm assuming your makefile is calling ghc, as cabal apparently would.
Proposal: I believe there could be several key reasons, but the main one is that make is written in C, whereas cabal is written in Haskell. This would be coupled with superior dependency checking from make (although I'm not sure how to prove this without looking at the source code). Other supporting reasons, as found on the web:
cabal tries to do a lot more than simply compiling, e.g. appears to take steps with regard to packaging (https://www.haskell.org/cabal/)
cabal is written in haskell, although the run time is written in C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Haskell_Compiler)
Again, not being overly familiar with make internals, make may simply have a faster dependency checking mechanism, thereby better tracking these changes. I point this out because from the OP it sounds like there is a significant enough difference to where cabal may be doing a blanket check against all dependencies. I suspect this would be the primary reason for the speed difference, if true.
At any rate, these are open source and can be downloaded from their respective sites (haskell.org/cabal/ and savannah.gnu.org/projects/make/) allowing anyone to examine specifics of the implementations.
It is also likely one could see a lot of variance in speed based upon the switches passed to the compilers in use.
HTH at least point you in the right direction.