In the Stackage maintainer's agreement, there's a section about
keeping your package compatible with the newest versions of all
dependencies. What the maintainer's agreement doesn't (yet) discuss
is when it's important to be compatible with old versions of a
package. The reasons for this are not immediately obvious,
especially as it affects a smaller subset of the Hackage author
population. This blog post will cover some of the reasons for this
The original impetus for writing this was to get one specific
message across: please continue supporting
transformers-0.3.0.0! For the explanation of why, please keep
The simplest case to discuss is packages like base and
template-haskell. Not only are these packages shipped with GHC, but
they cannot be upgraded. As a result, if you have a package that
base >= 4.7, it will only work with GHC 7.8
and later. Users who are still using 7.6 (or 7.4... or earlier...
yes, those people do in fact exist) will have no means of
using your package.
That of course brings up a question of how many versions of GHC
you want to support. I'd highly recommend always supporting the
most recent Haskell Platform release, as many users (especially
Windows users) stick to that. Going back an extra version as well
isn't a bad idea either, especially as some distributions (e.g.,
Ubuntu) tend to ship relatively old GHC versions.
This issue is more subtle. In addition to non-upgradeable
packages, GHC includes a number of packages which can be
installed separately, resulting in one copy of the package in your
global database, and one in your user database. (Yes, you can also
install into the global database, but I'm covering the common case
here.) Examples of these packages are bytestring, binary, and
The first problem with this is that it can lead to end-user
confusion. How many of you have tried working in GHCi, or just
compiling code with
ghc --make, and gotten a message
along the lines of "Could not match type ByteString with
ByteString"? That usually comes from two versions of a package
Now that's just a bit of an annoyance, and building your code
with cabal will almost always avoid it. But there's a second, more
serious problem. Some of these upgradeable packages are in turn
depended upon by non-upgradeable packages. For example,
template-haskell depends on containers. As a result, imagine if you
try to use containers 0.5 and template-haskell when on GHC 7.4.
Since template-haskell depends on containers-0.4.2.1, you'll run
Another problem is the ghc package (aka GHC-the-library). With
GHC 7.8.2, I have the following dependencies for the installed ghc
So if I try to use- for example- transformers 0.4.1.0 and a
package requiring ghc at the same time, I'll run into a conflict.
And there are actually a large number of such packages; just
doctest has over 100
The last reason is the one I hear the most pushback about from
package authors. The Haskell Platform pegs users at specific
versions of dependencies. For example, the most recent HP release
pegs text at 0.11.3.1. Now imagine that you write a package that
text >= 1.0. A user with the Haskell
Platform installed will likely get warnings from cabal when
installing your package about conflicting versions of text, and
possibly breaking other packages that depend on it.
I can tell you what I've personally done about this situation.
For my open source packages, I make sure to keep compatibility with
the Haskell Platform released version of a package. Sometimes this
does lead to some ugliness. Two examples are:
- streaming-commons has to have a copy of some of the streaming
text code, since it was not available before text 1.1. (And due to
an issue with cabal, we can't even
conditionally include the code.)
- In chunked-data, I wasn't able to rely upon the
hGetChunk function, and instead needed to use CPP to include a
far less efficient backup approach when using older versions of
In the Stackage project, I run versions of the build both with
and without Haskell Platform constraints. There are actually a
whole slew of conditionals in the version selection which say "if
you're using HP, then use this older version of a dependency."
However, as time goes on, more and more packages are simply not
supporting the HP-pegged versions of packages anymore.
I'm not commenting here on the value of HP-pegged versions, but
simply pointing out a reality: if you want your users to have a
good experience, especially Windows users, it's probably a
good idea to keep compatibility with the older HP-provided
versions. I also think the ramifications of the HP approach really
need to be discussed by the community, it seems like there's not
much discussion going on about the impact of the HP.
Also, regarding the packages shipped with GHC: there have
certainly been discussions about improving this situation. I know
that removing the Cabal dependency from ghc has been discussed, and
would certainly improve the situation somewhat. If others want to
kick off a conversation on improving things, I'd be happy to
participate, but I frankly don't have any concrete ideas on how to
make things better right now.
Subscribe to our blog via email
Email subscriptions come from our Atom feed and are handled by Blogtrottr. You will only receive notifications of blog posts, and can unsubscribe any time.
Do you like this blog post and need help with Next Generation Software Engineering, DevSecOps or Blockchain & Smart Contracts? Contact us.