Proposal: Changes to the PVP
April 8, 2014
This blog post presents some concrete changes I'd like to see to the PVP to make it better for both general consumers of Hackage, and for library authors as well. I'll start off with a summary of the changes, and then give the explanations:
The goal of the PVP needs to be clarified. Its purpose is not to ensure reproducible builds of non-published software, but rather to provide for more reliable builds of libraries on Hackage. Reproducible builds should be handled exclusively through version freezing, the only known technique to actually give the necessary guarantees.
Upper bounds should not be included on non-upgradeable packages, such as base and template-haskell (are there others?). Alternatively, we should establish some accepted upper bound on these packages, e.g. many people place base < 5 on their code.
We should be distinguishing between mostly-stable packages and unstable packages. For a package like text, if you simply import Data.Text (Text, pack, reverse), or some other sane subset, there's no need for upper bounds.
Note that this doesn't provide a hard-and-fast rule like the current PVP, but is rather a matter of discretion. Communication between library authors and users (via documentation or other means) would be vital to making this work well.
For a package version A.B.C, a bump in A or B indicates some level of breaking change. As an opt-in approach, package authors are free to associated meaning to A and B beyond what the PVP requires. Libraries which use these packages are free to rely on the guarantees provided by package authors when placing upper bounds.
Note that this is very related to point (3).
While I (Michael Snoyman) am the author of this proposal, the following people have reviewed the proposal and support it:
- Bryan O'Sullivan
- Felipe Lessa
- Roman Cheplyaka
- Vincent Hanquez
There are a number of simple cases that can result in PVP-compliant code not being buildable. These aren't just hypothetical cases; in my experience as both a package author and Stackage maintainer, I've seen these come up.
Package foo version 1.0 provides an instance for MonadFoo for IO and Identity. Version 1.1 removes the IO instance for some reason. Package bar provides a function:
bar :: MonadFoo m => Int -> m Double
Package bar compiles with both version 1.0 and 1.1 of foo, and therefore (following the PVP) adds a constraint to its cabal file
foo >= 1.0 && < 1.2.
Now a user decides to use the bar package. The user never imports anything from foo, and therefore has no listing for foo in the cabal file. The user code depends on the IO instance for MonadFoo. When compiled with foo 1.0, everything works fine. However, when compiled with foo 1.1, the code no longer compiles.
Similarly, instead of typeclass instances, the same situation can occur with module export lists. Consider version 1.0 of foo which provides:
module Foo (foo1, foo2) where
Version 1.1 removes the foo2 export. The bar package reexports the entire Foo module, and then a user package imports the module from bar. If the user package uses the foo2 function, it will compile when foo-1.0 is used, but not when foo-1.1 is used.
In both of these cases, the issue is the same: transitive dependencies are not being clamped down. The PVP makes an assumption that the entire interface for a package can be expressed in its version number, which is not true. I see three possible solutions to this:
Try to push even more of a burden onto package authors, and somehow make them guarantee that their interface is completely immune to changes elsewhere in the stack. This kind of change was proposed on the libraries list. I'm strongly opposed to some kind of change like this: it makes authors' lives harder, and makes it very difficult to provide backwards compatibility in libraries. Imagine if transformers 0.4 adds a new MonadIO instance; the logical extreme of this position would be to disallow a library from working with both transformers 0.3 and 0.4, which will split Hackage in two.
Modify the PVP so that instead of listing just direct dependencies, authors are required to list all transitive dependencies as well. So it would be a violation to depend on bar without explicitly listing foo in the dependency list. This will work, and be incredibly difficult to maintain. It will also greatly increase the time it takes for a new version of a deep dependency to be usable due to the number of authors who will have to bump version bounds.
Transfer responsibility for this to package users: if you first built your code against foo 1.0, you should freeze that information and continue building against foo 1.0, regardless of the presence of new versions of foo. Not only does this increase reproducibility, it's just common sense: it's entirely possible that new versions of a library will introduce a runtime bug, performance regression, or even fix a bug that your code depends on. Why should the reliability of my code base be dependent on the actions of some third party that I have no control over?
There are some packages which ship with GHC and cannot be upgraded. I'm aware of at least base and template-haskell, though perhaps there are others (haskell98 and haskell2010?). In the past, there was good reason to place upper bounds on base, specifically with the base 3/4 split. However, we haven't had that experience in a while, and don't seem to be moving towards doing that again. In today's world, we end up with the following options:
- Place upper bounds on base to indicate "I haven't tested this with newer versions of GHC." This then makes it difficult for users to test out that package with newer versions of GHC.
- Leave off upper bounds on base. Users may then try to install a package onto a version of GHC on which the package hasn't been tested, which will result in either (1) everything working (definitely the common case based on my Stackage maintenance), or (2) getting a compilation error.
I've heard two arguments to push us in the direction of keeping the upper bounds in this case, so I'd like to address them both:
- cabal error messages are easier to understand than GHC error messages. I have two problems with that:
I disagree: cabal error messages are terrible. (I'm told this will be fixed in the next version of cabal.) Take the following output as a sample:
cabal: Could not resolve dependencies: trying: 4Blocks-0.2 rejecting: base-220.127.116.11/installed-8aa... (conflict: 4Blocks => base>=2 && <=4) rejecting: base-18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199 (global constraint requires installed instance)
I've seen a number of users file bug reports not understanding that this message means "you have the wrong version of GHC."
Even if the error messages were more user-friendly, they make it more difficult to fix the actual problem: the code doesn't compile with the new version of GHC. Often times, I've been able to report an error message to a library author and, without necessarily even downloading the new version of GHC, he/she has been able to fix the problem.
Using upper bounds in theory means that cabal will be able to revert to an older version of the library that is compatible with the new version of GHC. However, I find it highly unlikely that there's often- if ever- a case where an older version of a library is compatible with a later version of GHC.
Mostly-stable, and finer-grained versioning
I'll combine the discussion of the last two points. I think the heart of the PVP debates really comes from mostly-stable packages. Let's contrast with the extremes. Consider a library which is completely stable, never has a breaking change, and has stated with absolute certainty that it never will again. Does anyone care about upper bounds on this library? They're irrelevant! I'd have no problem with including an upper bound, and I doubt even the staunchest PVP advocates would really claim it's a problem to leave it off.
On the other hand, consider an extremely unstable library, which is releasing massively breaking changes on a weekly basis. I would certainly agree in that case that an upper bound on that library is highly prudent.
The sticking point is the middle ground. Consider the following code snippet:
import Data.Text (Text, pack) foo :: Text foo = pack "foo"
According to the PVP as it stands today, this snippet requires an upper bound
< 1.2 on the text package. But let's just play the odds here: does anyone
actually believe there's a real chance that the next iteration of
break this code snippet? I highly doubt it; this is a stable subset of the text
API, and I doubt it will ever be changing. The same can be said of large
subsets of many other packages.
By putting in upper bounds in these cases, we run a very real risk of bifurcating Hackage into "those demanding the new text version for some new feature" vs "those who haven't yet updated their upper bounds to allow the new version of text."
The PVP currently takes an extremely conservative viewpoint on this, with the goal of solving just one problem: making sure code that compiles now continues to compile. As I demonstrated above, it doesn't actually solve that problem completely. And in addition, in this process, it has created other problems, such as this bifurcation.
So my proposal is that, instead of creating rigid rules like "always put an upper bound no matter what," we allow some common sense into the process, and also let package authors explicitly say "you can rely on this API not changing."