See a typo? Have a suggestion? Edit this page on Github
I'm sure a number of readers have already seen something about the situation around Stack and Stackage Nightly/GHC 8.2. I tried to clarify how this happened on the relevant Github issue, plus the GHC trac ticket, but thought I'd reshare as a blog post for others who are interested.
EDIT Right after publishing, I saw that Stack 1.6.1 was released, so you
should probably just run
stack upgrade. Keep reading if you're curious on the
When the first releases of Stackage Nightly for GHC 8.2.1 started
coming out some months back, they did not work with Stack 1.5.0, due
to an issue with the
ghc.cabal file on Hackage. The reason for this
is explained below. We made a point release (Stack 1.5.1) which worked
around the issue temporarily, until Stack 1.6 was released with the
In the interim, GHC 8.2.2 was released, and Stackage Nightly switched over to it. Contrary to my initial claims: this was a red herring and unrelated to anything.
On December 4, integer-gmp-18.104.22.168 was uploaded to Hackage, which
reintroduced all of the breakage we had with Stack 1.5.0. Since our
point release had a very targetted workaround (specifically for
ghc.cabal), it did not work around the same bug occurring for
integer-gmp.cabal. Therefore, all versions of Stack before 1.6 will
fail to build a Stackage release with GHC 8.2.
The best "workaround" is just a new release: Stack 1.6 was fortunately
already in release candidate mode, and as I type this up it's going
through the standard release process. By the time I hit publish, the
workaround may be to run
If that's not the case, you can upgrade to the release candidate by running:
stack upgrade --binary-version 22.214.171.12471202
In order to understand the explanation, you should be aware of a few different things that are all called Cabal:
cabal-version: >= 1.10looking field. This is stating which version of the Cabal file format is being used. New versions of Cabal-the-library may add new features to the Cabal file format. The version of the format tracks the library version it was released with, so that a cabal file stating
cabal-version: >= 1.24can only be parsed by Cabal-the-library 1.24 or later.
There was an addition made to Cabal-the-file-format 2.0: a
operator. This operator is not parseable by older versions of Cabal
the library (meaning: Cabal 1.24 or earlier). Stack 1.5 was built
against Cabal-the-library 1.24, and therefore cannot parse any Cabal
files using this new operator.
The Stackage build process prevents any such Cabal files from being
used yet to give tooling (like Stack) a chance to upgrade, something
I've requested of Hackage as well. However, there are some packages
which ship with GHC itself, and which Stackage has no control over in
the creation of a snapshot. This includes packages like
There's a short explanation (and some code to demonstrate it!) for the original breakage with GHC 8.2.1 in the pull request:
Prior to Stack 1.6, there was a bug where Stack would try to get some metadata about libraries that shipped with GHC from their cabal files instead of directly from the package database. Historically, this has never been a problem, which is why it's survived in Stack for so long. The reason is that, historically, GHC-shipped packages did not use bleeding-edge features in their cabal files.
When GHC 8.2.1 was released, the
ghc.cabal file uploaded to Hackage
did something new: it used a feature of the newly released Cabal 2.0
file format (the
^>= operator) and required the new Cabal 2.0
library to parse it. This occurred before Stack had a chance to
upgrade to Cabal-the-library 2.0, and for that matter before
cabal-install 2.0 was released. In other words: at the time the file
was placed on Hackage, no officially released version of any common
tool supported it.
For unrelated reasons, I'd already fixed this bug on master as part of a refactoring. Strangely enough, that refactoring had to do with problems with revisions. Thanks to the revision system, it's not possible to rely on cabal files on Hackage to tell you anything about GHC-installed packages, since we can't know for certain which revision was used to build the package. (We'll get to integer-gmp in a moment, which is slightly worse in this regard.)
The behavior of Stack at this time with regard to GHC-shipped packages was the following (and this is a bug):
It was this second bullet which caused a problem. When we discovered
this, we released an emergency patch release of Stack to work around
this situation and simply ignore parse failures from
did not embark on a bigger fix because:
This went out the door, and all users who upgraded to Stack 1.5.1 were able to use the new Stackage Nightly snapshots based on GHC 8.2.2.
One of the packages that ships with GHC 8.2 is
integer-gmp-126.96.36.199. Until December 4, this package was not uploaded
to Hackage. As a result, Stack 1.5.1 simply ignored the package
entirely, which worked fine. However, something we didn't anticipate
integer-gmp-188.8.131.52was uploaded to Hackage
Before this upload, the missing
integer-gmp.cabal file was simply
ignored by Stack. Once it was uploaded, Stack (again, as a bug) tries
to parse it, fails, and gives up.
Obviously there was a bug in Stack that needed to be fixed, and has
been fixed. However, the irregularities around the
integer-gmp.cabal files are a little troubling, and make it
difficult to predict future behavior. Hopefully some new policies from
GHC HQ will address these concerns.
And while this case is a bug in Stack, I want to clarify a general point. It is entirely expected that over time, older releases of Stack will not be able to use newer Stackage snapshots. At some point in the future, Stackage will allow Cabal 2.0-formatted cabal files into snapshots, and then by design Stack 1.5 and earlier will be unable to parse those files. That's unfortunate, but expected. What's unexpected in this case was that
Both points will hopefully be hit both by the fixes that landed on Stack 1.6 ensuring less eager parsing of cabal files, and changes in GHC HQ policy.
I hope that clarifies. This is definitely an unfortunate situation, and I know it's screwed up people's development, so my apologies on that front. I hope for all our sakes (mine included!) that the situation is more stable going forward.