See a typo? Have a suggestion? Edit this page on Github

This post is going to talk about some of the design choices made over the years around the Stackage project, a curated package set for Haskell. While many of these points will be Haskell- and Stackage-specific, I think the ideas would translate well to other languages interested in created curated package sets. This blog post was inspired by a short discussion on Twitter, which made it clear that I'd never really shared design thoughts on the Stackage project:

@snoyberg @iElectric sounds like you've put already a lot of thought into that. would luv to learn more about! — Haskell Dev (@haskdev) January 16, 2017

In understanding why Stackage is the way it is today, it will be important to take into account:

The goals of the project

The historical circumstances when decisions were made

Social pressures in the community agitating for specific decisions

Inertia in the project making significant changes difficult

Apologies in advance, this turned out longer than I'd intended.

Goals

Before Stackage, the most common way to find a set of libraries to use in a Haskell project was using cabal-install's dependency solver, based on bounds information specified by authors. There were certainly some efforts at creating curated package sets previously (Haskell Platform provided a limited set; the Yesod Platform provided a full set of packages for the Yesod Web Framework; various Linux distros had binary packages). But I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people writing Haskell code were using dependency solving.

I'm not going to get into the argument of dependency solving vs curation here. I will simply say that for many people - myself included - having official combinations of packages which are known to compile together, and which can be given to end users and teammates on a project, was very appealing. This was the motivation for my initial Stackage call for participation.

While the primary goal - create curated package sets - is obvious, the secondary goals are not. In fact, many of them only really became clear to me in 20-20 hindsight:

Require as little maintenance as possible. Stackage should be as much an automated process as can be created, since human time is a valuable, scarce resource. In other words: I'm lazy :).

Require as little change in behavior from package authors as possible. In my opinion, the only reasonable way to bootstrap a project is to make it trivial for people to participate. The barrier to entry for Stackage had to be minimal. Even past the "bootstrapping" phase, a nice quality of any system is requiring little effort on the part of users. Therefore, even today, where Stackage is arguably successful and well-established, this goal still applies.

It needed to work well with existing tooling. In 2012, the Stack project hadn't even been dreamt up yet, so figuring out a way to work with cabal-install (via the cabal.config file) was vital. Compatibility with cabal-install is still a nice thing today, but not nearly as vital as it was then.

We need to maximize the number of packages that can be included in a single snapshot. The two ways in which two packages can be incompatible are: There is an actual incompatibility in the API, such as a function being removed or its type signature changed in a new release of a dependency. There is a stated upper or lower bound in a package which precludes a build plan, but the code itself would actually compile. (This is the case --allow-newer is designed for.)



Initial choices

Based on these goals, I created the initial version of Stackage. While many decisions came into play (e.g., what file format should we use to let package authors submit packages?), I'm going to focus on the interesting choices that fell out of the goals above, and which today may be noteworthy.

As I'd learnt from maintaining Yesod, many Windows users in particular were using the Haskell Platform (HP), and trying to specify different versions of packages from what HP provided could cause problems. Therefore, it was important to keep compatibility with the Haskell Platform set of packages. This resulted in multiple builds of Stackage: a "current GHC", "previous GHC", and "Haskell Platform superset."

We should always try to take the latest available version of a package, as it may include bug fixes, feature enhancements, and generally because the Haskell community loves the bleeding edge :). However, there would be cases where a new version of a package caused enough breakage to warrant holding it back, so some concept of enforced upper bounds was necessary too.

It was theoretically possible to ignore version bound information in cabal files, and instead ensure compatibility based on compiling and running test suites. However, this would have some serious downsides: Users would have regularly needed to run builds with --allow-newer If there were non-API-breaking semantic changes in a package, a version bound was present to avoid those changes, and there was no test suite to cover that behavior, ignoring bounds would cause those semantic changes to slip in (in my experience, this is an exceedingly rare case, but it can happen) It's arguably very confusing behavior that a package set specifies versions of packages which claim to be incompatible with each other Therefore, version bounds needed to be respected. However...

Due to the frequency of overly restrictive version bounds and trivial compatibility patches which were slow to make it upstream, Stackage allowed for locally modified packages. That means that, for example, Stackage snapshot foo could have a different set of code associated with mtl-2.2.1 than what Hackage reports. Note that this feature was more aggressive than Hackage cabal file revisions, in that it allowed the code itself to change, not just the cabal file.

These decisions lasted for (IIRC) about a year, and were overall successful at letting Stackage become a thriving project. I was soon able to shut down the Yesod Platform initiative in favor of Stackage, which was a huge relief for me. At this point, outside of the Yesod community, I think Stackage was viewed mostly as a "ecosystem-wide CI system" than something for end users. It wasn't until Stack defaulted to Stackage snapshots that end users en masse started using Stackage.

Changes over time

Stackage today is quite a bit different from the above decisions:

I eventually dropped the Haskell Platform superset. There was a time when that package set wasn't updated, and the complication of trying to find a compatible set of packages on top of it was simply too high. In addition, HP included a version of aeson with a significant security hole (DoS attack with small inputs), and continuing to supply such a package set was not something I felt comfortable doing.

Due to the burden of maintaining bleeding-edge Stackages for multiple GHC versions - both on myself as the curator and on package authors - I also dropped support for older GHC releases. Instead, I introduced LTS Haskell, which keeps compatibility with older GHCs without adding (significant) package author burden.

When working on the GPS Haskell collaboration, I removed support for locally modified packages. This was done due to requests from the Hackage and Haskell Platform maintainers, who wanted a single definition of a package. With this change, unresponsive package maintainers can really hold things up in Stackage. However, this overall led to a number of simplifications in code, and ultimately allowed for better binary cache support in Stack. So despite the initial pain, I think this was a good change.

Hackage revisions make it possible for a package set to contain packages which are no longer compatible by their latest cabal files. Therefore, we needed to add support to Stackage to track which version of a cabal file was included in a snapshot, not just the version of the package itself. I only mention this here because it weakens our previous decision to respect cabal file constraints due to avoiding user confusion.

We have an expanded team! I'm happy to say that I am now one of five Stackage curators, and no longer have to either handle all the work myself, or make unilateral decisions. In other words, I get to share the blame with others :). Many thanks to Adam Bergmark, Dan Burton, Jens Petersen, and our newest member, Luke Murphy.

Changes to consider today

Alright, this post has turned out way longer than I'd expected, apologies for this. I guess there was more decision making that occurred than I'd realized. Anyway, I hope that gives some context for where things are at today. Which brings us to the original discussion that brought this whole blog post into existence: should we be changing anything about Stackage? Here are some changes either proposed by others or that I've thought of, and some remarks.

The curator team overall has been pretty lax about booting packages that block newer versions of dependencies. There have definitely been calls for us to be more proactive about that, and aggressively kick out packages that are holding back dependencies. Pros: Stackage Nightly will live up to its bleeding edge mission statement more effectively, we'll overall have less incidental pain on package authors who are staying up to date with their dependencies. Cons: it will decrease the number of packages in Stackage Nightly for end users, and adds extra burden on package authors to be more quick to respond to requests.

As a relaxed version of the above: be stricter with package authors, but only in the case of cabal file upper bounds. The argument here is stronger, since the work required is fairly minimal, and - at least in my experience - waiting for relaxed upper bounds is what takes up a lot of the time when curating. An extreme version of this is demanding that upper bounds just be removed.

Or an interesting alternative to that: should Stackage simply ignore constraints in cabal files entirely? It would be fairly easy to extend Stack to recognize a flag in snapshots to say "ignore the constraints when building," or even make that the default behavior. Pros: less time spent on bounds issues, Stackage doesn't get held back by trivial version bounds issues, for PVP bounds enthusiasts could encourage people to add bounds during upload more often (not sure of that). Cons: cabal users with Stackage snapshots wouldn't have as nice a time, it could be confusing for users, and if the upper bounds are in place due to semantic changes we won't catch it.

Since GPS Haskell isn't happening, we could add back the ability for the Stackage curator team to modify packages (both cabal files and source files). I think the pros and cons of this were pretty well established above, I'm not going to repeat it here.

People have asked for running multiple nightly lines with different GHC versions. Pros: instead of haven't slightly outdated LTS versions for older GHCs, we'd have bleeding edge all over again. Cons: we'd need new naming schemes for snapshots, a lot more work for the curator team, and potentially a lot more work for package authors who would need to maintain further GHC compatibility with their most recent releases.

I've had some private discussions around this, and thought I should share the idea here. Right now, Stackage requires that any package added must be available on Hackage. A number of newer build systems have been going the route of allowing packages to be present only in a Git repository. Stack has built-in support for specifying such locations, but snapshots do not support it. Should we add support to Stackage to allow packages to be pulled from places besides Hackage? Pros: knocks down another barrier to entry for publishing packages. Cons: Stackage snapshots will not automatically work with cabal-install anymore, extra work to be done to make this functional, and some issues around determining who owns a package name need to be worked out.



There are likely other changes that I haven't mentioned, feel free to raise them in the comments below. Also, if anyone really wants to follow up on these topics, the best place to do that is the Stackage mailing list.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.