|
| 1 | +# Midstream bindists |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## Abstract |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +Bindists for the Haskell toolchain have been produced by upstream (the developers of each respective tool) for |
| 6 | +a long time and many tools rely on these "official" bindists (e.g. GHCup and stack). |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +We propose here that bindists are built and maintained by the GHCup project, which |
| 9 | +provides the main installation experiences in the Haskell ecosystem, removing the hard |
| 10 | +dependency on upstream bindists entirely. |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +## Background |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +Historically, installers like GHCup and stack have used upstream bindists for mainly one reason: it's easy to do |
| 15 | +so and doesn't require further efforts. |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +However, using upstream bindists directly is extremely rare in the Linux world of distribution. Most distributions |
| 18 | +build, package, test and curate binary packages themselves, not only because they have custom formats, but for |
| 19 | +reasons of control, trust and quality. |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +The relationship of GHCup and bindists has also been described in the blog post |
| 22 | +[GHCup is not an installer](https://hasufell.github.io/posts/2023-11-14-ghcup-is-not-an-installer.html) recently. |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +## Problem Statement |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +From the perspective of a GHCup developer, there are several issues with relying on upstream bindists. |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +### Platform support |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +GHC and other tools have in the past dropped support for certain platforms either entirely or requested |
| 31 | +the community to step up and do the work (e.g. on GHC CI). |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +E.g. [GHC ARMv7 support was dropped silently without any call for help](https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/21177#note_470440). Similarly, FreeBSD support just ceased to exist when the GHC FreeBSD CI stopped working. Later the community asked for a [revival](https://gitlab.haskell.org/groups/ghc/-/epics/5), but nothing signifcant has happened so far. |
| 34 | +GHCup still produces bindists from time to time for FreeBSD, but e.g. the [HLS release manager for 2.5.0.0 recently refused to add FreeBSD bindists](https://github.com/haskell/ghcup-metadata/pull/159). |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +Similarly, stack used to have issues with Aarch64 bindists: |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5709 |
| 39 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5854 |
| 40 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5540 |
| 41 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5610 |
| 42 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5619 |
| 43 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/6141 |
| 44 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/6142 |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +Recently, cabal-install had issues with i386 binaries and alpine, delaying a GHCup metadata PR: |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +* https://github.com/haskell/ghcup-metadata/pull/127#issuecomment-1766020410 |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +These issues are frequent and so far the GHCup developers used to single handedly fix all those missing bindists manually |
| 51 | +and provide them here: https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghcup/unofficial-bindists/ |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +This is unfunded and significant work. |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +### Bindist maintenance |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +Sometimes, bindists are broken, e.g. for GHC there are a couple of instances: |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +* 9.0.2 shipping without profiling info: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/21841 |
| 60 | +* DESTDIR variable ignored by `make install`: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/19646 |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +Sometimes, bindists have been built for very old version of linux distros and won't run well on newer linux versions. |
| 63 | +This is currently a problem since Debian has removed ncurses5: |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +* https://github.com/haskell/ghcup-hs/issues/902 |
| 66 | +* https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ncurses/+question/707838 |
| 67 | +* https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1025964 |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +For cabal, there has been the infamous hLock issue: |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +* https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/7313 |
| 72 | +* https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/7950 |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +This shows that bindists, for current and historical versions, need continuous maintenance. However, upstream developers |
| 75 | +so far have very rarely engaged in this type of maintenance work, pushing it down to GHCup. As an example, here are all the |
| 76 | +manually patched and re-packaged bindists that fix the DESTDIR bug outlined above: https://downloads.haskell.org/ghcup/unofficial-bindists/ghc/curated/ |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | +This type of work also requires significant time. |
| 79 | + |
| 80 | +### Quality gateway |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +There's something pleasing about upstream providing bindists: there's a perceived trust about it in the community, |
| 83 | +e.g. the [haskell.org committee expressed concerns about GHCup changing bindists in the past](https://github.com/haskell-infra/www.haskell.org/issues/212#issuecomment-1272312911). |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +However, rarely do upstream developers have signifcant experience in redistribution, nor do they have the time to focus |
| 86 | +on all the issues that come with it. Bindists are mostly provided "as-is" and support beyond what the release CI outputs is |
| 87 | +left to midstream (GHCup, stack, ...). |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +Conceptually, it is a good idea to separate concerns: upstream provides the sources and has tested it. Distributions build the binaries, |
| 90 | +validate that the program can be successfully built from source and make sure that the final artifacts pass the test suite. |
| 91 | +This is good, because we want to know whether end users can build e.g. a functioning GHC from source. If only the release CI outputs |
| 92 | +a GHC that passes the test suite, then something is fundamentally broken. |
| 93 | + |
| 94 | +Distributors are often closer to the end-users and can provide additional support and efforts for the installation experience. |
| 95 | + |
| 96 | +### Security backports |
| 97 | + |
| 98 | +Cabal has recently found to be vulnerable to [HSEC-2023-0015](https://github.com/haskell/security-advisories/blob/main/advisories/hackage/cabal-install/HSEC-2023-0015.md). |
| 99 | + |
| 100 | +This vulnerability [had not been communicated to the GHCup team](https://github.com/haskell/security-advisories/issues/129) prior to disclosure, |
| 101 | +causing high distress for a backport, since at the time of disclosure, cabal-3.6.2.0 |
| 102 | +was still 'recommended' by GHCup, since [cabal-3.10.2.0 is still broken on windows](https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/9334). |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +As such, GHCup developers needed a quick and efficient way to: |
| 105 | + |
| 106 | +* patch cabal |
| 107 | +* build release binaries for cabal |
| 108 | +* ship the binaries |
| 109 | + |
| 110 | +This had been done as a downstream release `3.6.2.0-p1` roughly a week after the disclosure. |
| 111 | + |
| 112 | +Meanwhile, cabal upstream still has not finished their backport due to issues |
| 113 | +with hackage dependencies: https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/9457 |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +This shows that a certain amount of independences from upstream CI and upstream workflow |
| 116 | +is essential to fulfill swift security backports to potentially under-maintained |
| 117 | +branches/versions. |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +### GHC nightlies |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +As a special case, I want to point out that GHC nightlies have been frequently broken beyond repair: |
| 122 | + |
| 123 | +* https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghcup-metadata/-/issues/2 |
| 124 | +* https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/24000 |
| 125 | + |
| 126 | +The breakage was left unattended and some bindists completely vanished from gitlab CI artifacts, because of misconfiguration. |
| 127 | +Here's a graph of nightlies availability: https://grafana.gitlab.haskell.org/d/ab109e66-a8a1-4ae9-b976-40e2dfe281ab/availabilitie-of-ghc-nightlies-via-ghcup?orgId=2 |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | +## Prior Art, Related Efforts and alternative solutions |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | +So far, GHCup developers have tried to close the gap, doing signifcant work on upstream CIs and building bindists manually where |
| 132 | +necessary. |
| 133 | + |
| 134 | +Bindists for cabal-install are now produced by GHCup's own CI: https://github.com/haskell/ghcup-metadata/blob/develop/.github/workflows/cabal-release.yaml |
| 135 | + |
| 136 | +HLS will likely follow shortly. |
| 137 | + |
| 138 | +As mentioned before, there have been attempts to improve the coordination and collaboration across the entire Haskell |
| 139 | +toolchain, view the tooling end-user experience in a holistic way and make decisions based on that end-user experience: https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/issues/48 |
| 140 | + |
| 141 | +The proposers believe that the community structure at the moment does not allow such an approach and there needs to be |
| 142 | +significant work to align goals, perception and priorities. Otherwise there will be too much friction. |
| 143 | + |
| 144 | +The most important currency in the open source volunteer world is **energy**. It is not code or technical effort. As such we |
| 145 | +believe that the amount of saved energy by being more independent of upstream release processes and decisions far outweighs |
| 146 | +potential costs of technical redundancy/duplication. |
| 147 | + |
| 148 | +A future proposal may very well attempt to create a unified user experience across the entire Haskell toolchain |
| 149 | +through joint management and collaboration. But that is not in the scope of this proposal and we have no concrete |
| 150 | +idea how to achieve that. |
| 151 | + |
| 152 | +## Technical Content |
| 153 | + |
| 154 | +We propose here to start with the smallest step possible, to build the entire Haskell toolchain autonomically. |
| 155 | +The way this will be implemented is to start a central GitHub repository that builds bindists for releases of: |
| 156 | + |
| 157 | +- GHC |
| 158 | +- HLS |
| 159 | +- cabal |
| 160 | +- stack |
| 161 | + |
| 162 | +For the following platforms: |
| 163 | + |
| 164 | +- FreeBSD x86_64 |
| 165 | +- Linux i386 |
| 166 | +- Linux x86_64 |
| 167 | +- Linux armv7 |
| 168 | +- Linux aarch64 |
| 169 | +- Darwin x86_64 |
| 170 | +- Darwin aarch64 |
| 171 | +- Windows x86_64 |
| 172 | + |
| 173 | +For the following Linux x86_64 distros: |
| 174 | + |
| 175 | +- Debian |
| 176 | +- Ubuntu |
| 177 | +- Mint |
| 178 | +- Fedora |
| 179 | +- CentOS |
| 180 | +- RedHat |
| 181 | +- Rocky Linux |
| 182 | +- Void Linux |
| 183 | +- Amazon Linux |
| 184 | +- Alpine |
| 185 | + |
| 186 | +Linux i386, armv7 and aarch64 will be confined to Debian or Ubuntu. |
| 187 | + |
| 188 | +These private runners will be made available to the whole Haskell GitHub org and as such benefit |
| 189 | +other projects there as well (like HLS, Cabal, bytestring, etc.). |
| 190 | + |
| 191 | +## Future work |
| 192 | + |
| 193 | +The following ideas and goals are outside of the scope of this proposal, but are essential |
| 194 | +to understand the broader mission and roadmap that motivated this proposal. |
| 195 | + |
| 196 | +### Enhancements to bindist quality and installation experience |
| 197 | + |
| 198 | +Further goals are: |
| 199 | + |
| 200 | +* enhance the quality of the bindists by |
| 201 | + - running the entire test suite for all of the tools |
| 202 | + - having a mechanism to report test failures back upstream |
| 203 | + - publishing test failures for end users to see |
| 204 | + - communicte test status of bindists clearly through e.g. GHCup |
| 205 | + - resolve GHC issues related to test bindists: |
| 206 | + * https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/22726 |
| 207 | + * https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/22723 |
| 208 | + * https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/22727 |
| 209 | +* make fixing bindists easier |
| 210 | + - implement revisions in GHCup: https://github.com/haskell/ghcup-hs/issues/361 |
| 211 | + - make it easy to update an older GHC branch and re-run the release pipeline |
| 212 | +- Make building upstream release binaries easier |
| 213 | + * https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/9461 |
| 214 | + * https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server/issues/3878 |
| 215 | + |
| 216 | +One main idea is that bindists should be primarily tested **on the users system**, because that is where they're going to run. |
| 217 | +It is great to know that e.g. the test suite passes on GHC CI, but that may have little value in different environments. |
| 218 | +Additionally, issues with tests can flow back to upstream developers and we may develop workflows and processes to streamline |
| 219 | +this type of feedback. Early release candidates can assist with this workflow. |
| 220 | + |
| 221 | +Another perception shift necessary is that upstream projects should consider that their build system |
| 222 | +are end-user interfaces, making it easier for both distributors and end-user to build release binaries correctly themselves. |
| 223 | + |
| 224 | +### Nightlies |
| 225 | + |
| 226 | +We also want to make nightlies available for GHC and cabal and HLS. This will require |
| 227 | +coming up with a permanent storage solution and very robust nightly pipelines. |
| 228 | + |
| 229 | +## Timeline |
| 230 | + |
| 231 | +* 6 months: proof of concept of a central GitHub CI building most of the toolchain |
| 232 | +* 12 months: building GHC via github actions |
| 233 | + |
| 234 | +## Funding |
| 235 | + |
| 236 | +### Who and what |
| 237 | + |
| 238 | +The GHCup project requests funding for private GitHub CI runners to power the midstream bindist release pipelines. |
| 239 | +It will receive and manage the funding in strict collaboration with the Haskell Foundation. |
| 240 | + |
| 241 | +Volunteers who want to collaborate in midstream bindists are welcome to look at the project structure and collaboration guidelines: |
| 242 | + |
| 243 | +* https://www.haskell.org/ghcup/about/#team |
| 244 | +* https://www.haskell.org/ghcup/dev/#contribution-process-and-expectations |
| 245 | + |
| 246 | +### Budget |
| 247 | + |
| 248 | +The following is an example/estimate of a budget (prices are in USD). The HF and the proposer will negotiate the exact terms in private. |
| 249 | + |
| 250 | +- Linux/FreeBSD x86_64 runner on Hetzner (AX52) |
| 251 | + * monthly: $62.24 |
| 252 | + * yearly: $746.88 |
| 253 | +- Linux aarch64 runner on Hetzner (RX170) |
| 254 | + * monthly: $181.73 |
| 255 | + * yearly: $2,180.76 |
| 256 | +- Darwin runner on Hetzner (Mac Mini M1) |
| 257 | + * monthly: $56.59 |
| 258 | + * yearly: $679.08 |
| 259 | + |
| 260 | +To host one private runner per all these platform, the yearly cost would be: **$3,606.72** |
| 261 | + |
| 262 | +There will likely also be an initial setup cost (as is usual for Hetzner). |
| 263 | + |
| 264 | +We may request more runners depending on the demand, so it may very well be 3 runners per platform, resulting in yearly cost of: $10,820.16 |
| 265 | + |
| 266 | +**As such, the budget estimated is between 4 to 10k USD per year.** |
| 267 | + |
| 268 | +## Stakeholders |
| 269 | + |
| 270 | +* GHCup developers, who receive funding |
| 271 | +* GHC developers |
| 272 | +* cabal developers |
| 273 | +* stack developers |
| 274 | +* HLS developers |
| 275 | +* VSCode Haskell developers |
| 276 | +* Haskell toolchain end users |
| 277 | + |
| 278 | +## Success |
| 279 | + |
| 280 | +* reliable, continuously maintained bindists, readily available |
| 281 | + |
0 commit comments