Permalink
Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
318 lines (228 sloc) 11.9 KB

Cookbook for common build-failures

This document gives recipes for addressing common compile errors and other meta-data issues, as well as best practices for performing meta-data revisions.

Compile errors/symptoms and their solutions

Problem:

Implicit import declaration:
    Ambiguous module name `Prelude':
      it was found in multiple packages: base haskell98-2.0.0.0

Fix: Add constraint haskell98 < 2

Explanation: Starting with version 2.0.0.0, haskell98 started including the Prelude module.


Problem:

Could not find module `MyModule'
Use -v to see a list of the files searched for.

Fix: Add two lines right under library keyword

-- some comment explaining why this package ver is marked bad
build-depends: base<0

Explanation: package is non-buildable and non-fixable by any metadata change: missing file etc. By adding non-solvable constraint, we tell Cabal to never pick this version.


Problem:

Ambiguous occurrence ‘defaultTimeLocale’
It could refer to either ‘System.Locale.defaultTimeLocale’, imported from ‘System.Locale’
or ‘Data.Time.defaultTimeLocale’, imported from  ‘Data.Time(.Format.Locale)’

Metadata fix: Add a time < 1.5 constraint.

Source fix: Import defaultTimeLocale from time-locale-compat:Data.Time.Locale.Compat

Explanation: time-1.5 added defaultTimeLocale obsoleting old-locale.


Problem

Could not deduce (Eq a) arising from a use of ‘==’ from the context: Num a
Could not deduce (Show a) arising from a use of ‘show’ from the context: Num a

Metadata fix: Add a base < 4.5 constraint.

Explaination: Num lost its Haskell2010-compliant Eq/Show superclasses in base-4.5


Problem

    Ambiguous occurrence `catch'
    It could refer to either `Prelude.catch',
                             imported from `Prelude' at Network/HTTP/Client/TLS.hs:4:8-30
                             (and originally defined in `System.IO.Error')
                          or `Control.Exception.catch',

Metadata fix: Add a base >=4.6 constraint.

Explanation: catch was removed from Prelude in base-4.6


Problem

    Could not find module ‘Control.Monad.Trans.Either’
    Perhaps you meant
      Control.Monad.Trans.Writer (from transformers-0.5.5.0)
      Control.Monad.Trans.Writer (needs flag -package transformers-0.3.0.0)
      Control.Monad.Trans.Writer (needs flag -package transformers-0.4.3.0)

Metadata fix: Add a either < 5 constraint.

Explanation: Control.Monad.Trans.Either was removed from either in either-5


Problem

The .cabal file contains disabled components (i.e. via buildable:False) and the build fails with

Configuring foo-1.2.3...
setup: At least the following dependencies are missing:
process -any, temporary >=1.1

Metadata fix: If missing, add a custom-setup stanza and set a lower bound setup-depends: Cabal >= 1.24.

Explanation: See Cabal #3881


Problem:

Several different errors: Missing modules or identifiers, name clashes. This is a quick reference for adding bounds for common errors.

Fix: If the identifier is missing/clashes add the constraint on the RHS.

base upper bounds:
Illegal bang-pattern (use -XBangP..)        => base < 4.4
Prelude.catch                               => base < 4.6

base lower bounds:
Data.Monoid.<>                              => base >= 4.5
Data.Bits.zeroBits                          => base >= 4.7
Prelude.&                                   => base >= 4.8
Control.Concurrent.forkFinally              => base >= 4.6
atomicModifyIORef'                          => base >= 4.6

bytestring:
Data.ByteString.Builder                     => bytestring >= 0.10.2
Data.ByteString.Lazy.Builder                => bytestring >= 0.10
Data.ByteString.Lazy.toStrict               => bytestring >= 0.10

containers:
Data.IntMap.Strict                          => containers >= 0.5
Data.Map.Strict                             => containers >= 0.5

getModificationTime :: _ -> IO UTCTime      => directory >= 1.2

Attoparsec.Done/Fail/Partial                => attoparsec < 0.10
Scientific vs Number                        => aeson < 0.7

Control.Monad.Trans.Resource & conduit      => conduit < 0.3

MonadThrow.monadThrow doesn't exist         => exceptions < 0.4, resourcet < 1.1

Data.Serialize.Builder                      => cereal < 0.5

crypto packages:
Crypto.Cipher.AES & depends on cryptocipher => cryptocipher < 0.5
Crypto.Cipher.RSA & depends on cryptocipher => cryptocipher < 0.5
Crypto.Cipher.AES.Key/keyOfCtx              => cipher-aes < 0.2
Crypto.Modes.IV                             => crypto-api < 0.11
Crypto.Random.AESCtr.genRandomBytes         => cprng-aes < 0.5
Couldn't match `Int' with `AESRNG'          => cprng-aes < 0.3

Best practice for managing meta-data

Below, multiple common schemes used to ensure accurate dependency meta-data are described, together their respective trade-offs and associated costs.

The architecture of the Hackage/Cabal ecosystem make it necessary to optimise the way meta-data is managed in order to keep the overall system sustainable. Specifically, the meta-data management protocols needs to ensure that the amount of meta-data updates are minimised and that the configuration space is kept reasonably compact.

A couple of general guiding principles are:

  • New package releases ought to be avoided when a meta-data revision would suffice
  • New releases or meta-data updates for the sole purpose of relaxing dependencies in test-suites and/or benchmark suites ought to be avoided. Such meta-data updates shall be saved up for the next release or the next "useful" revision.

In the descriptions below, the term active releases is to denote releases which are deemed the most recent ones and are considered actively supported (this is usually only one: the most recent version).

The correct way

  • Upload releases with proper PVP-style version bounds
  • Relax version bounds for active releases via revisions as needed

Static cost: 1 meta-data revision per compatible-dependency-upgrade-event

It has the benefit of reducing the overall risk of compile failures or compilable unsound configurations to a minimum. And by the more conservative approach to opt-in to extend the solution space rather than opt-out of incorrect parts of the solution space, don't put as much pressure on the maintainer to step in.

Moreover, this keeps the configuration space small which is beneficial for the cabal solver as it allows it to operate more efficiently and discard less interesting parts of the space sooner. This typically results in a configuration space which gets larger towards newer versions.

If a package has frequent releases (in relation to its dependencies), this scheme is very economical versions can often be relaxed as part of a new release.

From the correctness point of view as well as the overall cost, this represents the optimal scheme. This results in packages that from experience cause the least problems on Hackage, and therefore the least amount of work from all parties involved.

Moreover, this can be complemented with automated systems (such as Stackage or via packdeps + Travis CI) which can notify package authors when new package releases of dependencies become available which happen to be out of bounds.

Because this scheme is the overall optimal one, this is also the only scheme that's actually in full compliance with the stated Hackage guidelines.

The lagging way

  • Upload new releases without upper bounds (assuming they're compatible w/ most recent depending package versions on Hackage), and...
  • ... add upper bounds to previous releases that have become non-active by the new release
  • When unsound/bad install-plans are detected, add upper bounds ASAP

Static cost: 1 meta-data revision per release plus 1 meta-data revision per incompatible-dependency-upgrade-event

In this scheme, only active releases can have upper bounds omitted.

The problem with this scheme is that there is a constant risk that a new major release of a dependency allowed by the lack of an upper bound may result in an unsound configuration. However, since it's not possible to instantly revalidate each depending package when a new major release of a dependency occurs, this introduces a dangerous "lag" between Hackage's meta-data regressing into an unsound state and recovering again.

This "lag" is made up of the time from when the breaking dependency gets uploaded to the time when the unsoundness is detected plus the time needed for a maintainer stepping in and recovering correctness by adding the necessary upper bound.

This scheme results in the same meta-data during "sound" phases as the "correct" way described in the previous section; however, this scheme has scalability issues as the more Hackage grows, the more likelihood of at one or more packages becoming unsound increases as well. If this increases too much, a point would be reached at which there is always multiple unsound packages.

Another problem with this scheme is that by the time the problem has been detected, install-plans using unsound configurations (which happen to compile) may have started to become used by users (and which may not even exhibit the incorrectness as they may not use the broken codepaths). If such install-plans are retroactively prohibited, this results in a bad user-experience, and results in violation of the invariant that a meta-data revision shall not result in existing install-plans becoming illegal.

So this scheme is very sensitive to being able to detect & resolve meta-data regressions in a very timely matter, as otherwise the overall system collapses due to a build-up of not-yet-fixed unsound meta-data.

The sloppy way

  • Upload new releases without (upper) bounds (-"-)
  • When unsound/bad install-plans are detected,
    • add (all) upper bounds to all affected releases

Static cost: 1 meta-data revision per release.

This is similiar to the lagging way, typically increases the risk-exposure to more releases than just the next-to-last one, and thereby also misses the goal to keep the configuration space reasonably (and therefore results in a different meta-data situation than the other workflows!) compact to aid constraint solving.

Due to the increased configuration space, the combinatorics involved make it even more prohibitive than the laggy scheme (if not impossible) to cover validating new install-plans becoming possible due to the appearance of new major versions.

The revision-cost is actually lower than for the lagging scheme; for packages with a small number of total releases combined with a high amount of direct frequently releasing dependencies, this scheme may also result in a smaller static cost. However, the aforesaid mentioned disadvantages make this scheme still less preferable to the correct and lagging schemes.

The worst way

  • Upload new releases without (upper) bounds (-"-)
  • When unsound/bad install-plans are detected,
    • add the minimal amount of necessary upper bounds to all affected releases

Static cost: 1 meta-data revision per incompatible-dependency-upgrade-event times number of affected releases

This has by far the worst overall cost-model of all schemes listed here and asymptotically leads to the very harmful situation where the number of meta-data revisions will eventually outnumber the amount of actual package releases by orders of magnitudes, while also amplifying the downsides already described for the laggy and sloppy schemes, and last but not least also being the most laborious workflow for both maintainers and trustees.

In short, this scheme is maximally detrimental to the Hackage/Cabal ecosystem and therefore ought to be avoided at any price as it isn't sustainable due to the prohibitive computational complexities involved.