The "Begin Rust" book

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

Get new blog posts via email

I'm announcing a new, experimental field in the build-constraints.yaml file for Stackage. For those not familiar with Hackage revisions, let me give a quick rundown of how things work:

  • When you upload a package to Hackage, your tarball includes a .cabal file
  • That .cabal file gets included in the index tarball containing all .cabal files
  • From the Hackage website, package maintainers and Hackage Trustees are able to edit some metadata about a package, like its dependency bounds
  • When such an edit takes place, a new .cabal file is added at the end of the index tarball with the updated content
  • It is the responsibility of tooling (like cabal, Stack, and the Stackage build tools) to—when extracting a package's tarball—replace the original .cabal file with the correct version, usually the newest version available

When a Stackage build runs, until now it would always take the most recent revision of a .cabal file and use that for bounds checking (and other activities). Then, when creating a snapshot, it would include a hash of the revision of the .cabal file it used. That hash is in turn used by Stack to ensure that—when building a package from a snapshot—it uses the same revision for reproducibility.

(Sound complicated? It kind of is.)

OK, all that said: what's the problem? Well, there are some disagreements in certain cases about whether a revision to a package's .cabal file should have occurred. An unwanted revision can create undesired work for the package author. After this situation arose a few times, I discussed with some involved parties, and came up with the no-revisions field. Its purpose is really simple:

When the Stackage build tool is choosing which .cabal file revision to use, if a package is present in the no-revisions list, then the original revision is used. Otherwise, the newest revision is used.

UPDATE Someone pointed out that this "unwanted work" description was pretty vague. To clarify, here's an example situation:

  1. Package author Alice uploads package foo, and depends on bar >= 2.3 (with no upper bounds). The latest version of bar on Hackage is 2.3.
  2. Hackage Trustee Bob adds an upper so that, now, foo depends on bar >= 2.3 && < 2.4
  3. Package author Charlie uploads bar-2.4 to Hackage.
  4. Alice checks on her Git repo and sees that the current foo code is compatible with bar-2.4, so does nothing.
  5. Meanwhile, Stackage discovers the upper bounds and files a bug report for Alice to remove the upper bound (that she's not aware of).
  6. Alice needs to log in to Hackage and remove the upper bound (or at least relax it).
  7. Alternatively, with no-revisions in place, Alice could initially put foo in the no-revisions list, and then Bob's changes would be ignored completely by Stackage.

This is an opt-in field, so people who want the current behavior need not do anything. This change will transparently work for Stack, since it will simply respect the hash of the .cabal file. And since there may be some negative ramifications of this change I haven't considered, I'm calling this feature experimental and asking for feedback if this causing anyone some issues.

Hopefully this change will let people who are using the Stack and Stackage toolchain work with less interference, with less friction occurring with Hackage Trustees making version bounds modifications.

Get new blog posts via email