|
| 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 additionally built and maintained in joint effort by the projects that |
| 9 | +provide installation experiences, removing the hard dependency on upstream bindists entirely. |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +## Background |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +Historically, installers like GHCup and stack have used upstream bindists for mainly one reason: it's easy to do |
| 14 | +so and doesn't require further efforts. |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +However, using upstream bindists directly is extremely rare in the Linux world of distribution. Most distributions |
| 17 | +build, package, test and curate binary packages themselves, not only because they have custom formats, but for |
| 18 | +reasons of control, trust and quality. |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +The relationship of GHCup and bindists has also been described in the blog post |
| 21 | +[GHCup is not an installer](https://hasufell.github.io/posts/2023-11-14-ghcup-is-not-an-installer.html) recently. |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +## Problem Statement |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +From the perspective of a GHCup developer, there are several issues with relying on upstream bindists. |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +### Platform support |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +GHC and other tools have in the past dropped support for certain platforms either entirely or requested |
| 30 | +the community to step up and do the work (e.g. on GHC CI). |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +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. |
| 33 | +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). |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | +Similarly, stack used to have issues with Aarch64 bindists: |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5709 |
| 38 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5854 |
| 39 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5540 |
| 40 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5610 |
| 41 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5619 |
| 42 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/6141 |
| 43 | +* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/6142 |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +Recently, cabal-install had issues with i386 binaries and alpine, delaying a GHCup metadata PR: |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +* https://github.com/haskell/ghcup-metadata/pull/127#issuecomment-1766020410 |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +These issues are frequent and so far the GHCup developers used to single handedly fix all those missing bindists manually |
| 50 | +and provide them here: https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghcup/unofficial-bindists/ |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +This is unfunded and significant work. |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +### Bindist maintenance |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +Sometimes, bindists are broken, e.g. for GHC there are a couple of instances: |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +* 9.0.2 shipping without profiling info: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/21841 |
| 59 | +* DESTDIR variable ignored by `make install`: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/19646 |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | +Sometimes, bindists have been built for very old version of linux distros and won't run well on newer linux versions. |
| 62 | +This is currently a problem since Debian has removed ncurses5: |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +* https://github.com/haskell/ghcup-hs/issues/902 |
| 65 | +* https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ncurses/+question/707838 |
| 66 | +* https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1025964 |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | +For cabal, there has been the infamous hLock issue: |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +* https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/7313 |
| 71 | +* https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/7950 |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | +This shows that bindists, for current and historical versions, need continuous maintenance. However, upstream developers |
| 74 | +so far have very rarely engaged in this type of maintenance work, pushing it down to GHCup. As an example, here are all the |
| 75 | +manually patched and re-packaged bindists that fix the DESTDIR bug outlined above: https://downloads.haskell.org/ghcup/unofficial-bindists/ghc/curated/ |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +This type of work also requires significant time. |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +### Quality gateway |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +There's something pleasing about upstream providing bindists: there's a perceived trust about it in the community, |
| 82 | +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). |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +However, rarely do upstream developers have signifcant experience in redistribution, nor do they have the time to focus |
| 85 | +on all the issues that come with it. Bindists are mostly provided "as-is" and support beyond what the release CI outputs is |
| 86 | +left to midstream (GHCup, stack, ...). |
| 87 | + |
| 88 | +Conceptually, it is a good idea to separate concerns: upstream provides the sources and has tested it. Distributions build the binaries, |
| 89 | +validate that the program can be successfully built from source and make sure that the final artifacts pass the test suite. |
| 90 | +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 |
| 91 | +a GHC that passes the test suite, then something is fundamentally broken. |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +Distributors are often closer to the end-users and can provide additional support and efforts for the installation experience. |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +### Security backports |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +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). |
| 98 | + |
| 99 | +This vulnerability [had not been communicated to the GHCup team](https://github.com/haskell/security-advisories/issues/129) prior to disclosure, |
| 100 | +causing high distress for a backport, since at the time of disclosure, cabal-3.6.2.0 |
| 101 | +was still 'recommended' by GHCup, since [cabal-3.10.2.0 is still broken on windows](https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/9334). |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +As such, GHCup developers needed a quick and efficient way to: |
| 104 | + |
| 105 | +* patch cabal |
| 106 | +* build release binaries for cabal |
| 107 | +* ship the binaries |
| 108 | + |
| 109 | +This had been done as a downstream release `3.6.2.0-p1` roughly a week after the disclosure. |
| 110 | + |
| 111 | +Meanwhile, cabal upstream still has not finished their backport due to issues |
| 112 | +with hackage dependencies: https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/9457 |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | +This shows that a certain amount of independences from upstream CI and upstream workflow |
| 115 | +is essential to fulfill swift security backports to potentially under-maintained |
| 116 | +branches/versions. |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | +### GHC nightlies |
| 119 | + |
| 120 | +As a special case, I want to point out that GHC nightlies have been frequently broken beyond repair: |
| 121 | + |
| 122 | +* https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghcup-metadata/-/issues/2 |
| 123 | +* https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/24000 |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | +The breakage was left unattended and some bindists completely vanished from gitlab CI artifacts, because of misconfiguration. |
| 126 | +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 |
| 127 | + |
| 128 | +## Prior Art, Related Efforts and alternative solutions |
| 129 | + |
| 130 | +So far, GHCup developers have tried to close the gap, doing signifcant work on upstream CIs and building bindists manually where |
| 131 | +necessary. |
| 132 | + |
| 133 | +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 |
| 134 | + |
| 135 | +HLS will likely follow shortly. |
| 136 | + |
| 137 | +As mentioned before, there have been attempts to improve the coordination and collaboration across the entire Haskell |
| 138 | +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 |
| 139 | + |
| 140 | +The proposers believe that the community structure at the moment does not allow such an approach and there needs to be |
| 141 | +significant work to align goals, perception and priorities. Otherwise there will be too much friction. |
| 142 | + |
| 143 | +The most important currency in the open source volunteer world is **energy**. It is not code or technical effort. As such we |
| 144 | +believe that the amount of saved energy by being more independent of upstream release processes and decisions far outweighs |
| 145 | +potential costs of technical redundancy/duplication. |
| 146 | + |
| 147 | +A future proposal may very well attempt to create a unified user experience across the entire Haskell toolchain |
| 148 | +through joint management and collaboration. But that is not in the scope of this proposal and we have no concrete |
| 149 | +idea how to achieve that. |
| 150 | + |
| 151 | +## Technical Content |
| 152 | + |
| 153 | +We propose here to create a joint project of "installation experience" developers to get funding and maintain |
| 154 | +all tooling bindists centrally and autonomically. |
| 155 | + |
| 156 | +This will allow: |
| 157 | + |
| 158 | +* greater quality assurance |
| 159 | +* good platform support, we want to support at least these consistently: |
| 160 | +* more bindists for uncommon linux distros |
| 161 | +* continuously updated and maintained bindists (including historical GHC versions) |
| 162 | +* actually working nightlies |
| 163 | + |
| 164 | +### Phase 1 |
| 165 | + |
| 166 | +In Phase 1 we will build the entire Haskell toolchain autonomically. |
| 167 | +The way this will be implemented is to start a central GitHub repository that builds bindists for releases of: |
| 168 | + |
| 169 | +- GHC |
| 170 | +- HLS |
| 171 | +- cabal |
| 172 | +- stack |
| 173 | + |
| 174 | +For the following platforms: |
| 175 | + |
| 176 | +- FreeBSD x86_64 |
| 177 | +- Linux i386 |
| 178 | +- Linux x86_64 |
| 179 | +- Linux armv7 |
| 180 | +- Linux aarch64 |
| 181 | +- Darwin x86_64 |
| 182 | +- Darwin aarch64 |
| 183 | +- Windows x86_64 |
| 184 | + |
| 185 | +For the following Linux x86_64 distros: |
| 186 | + |
| 187 | +- Debian |
| 188 | +- Ubuntu |
| 189 | +- Mint |
| 190 | +- Fedora |
| 191 | +- CentOS |
| 192 | +- RedHat |
| 193 | +- Rocky Linux |
| 194 | +- Void Linux |
| 195 | +- Amazon Linux |
| 196 | +- Alpine |
| 197 | + |
| 198 | +Linux i386, armv7 and aarch64 will be confined to Debian or Ubuntu. |
| 199 | + |
| 200 | +### Phase 2 |
| 201 | + |
| 202 | +In Phase 2 we want to: |
| 203 | + |
| 204 | +* enhance the quality of the bindists by |
| 205 | + - running the entire test suite for all of the tools |
| 206 | + - having a mechanism to report test failures back upstream |
| 207 | + - publishing test failures for end users to see |
| 208 | + - communicte test status of bindists clearly through e.g. GHCup |
| 209 | + - resolve GHC issues related to test bindists: |
| 210 | + * https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/22726 |
| 211 | + * https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/22723 |
| 212 | + * https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/22727 |
| 213 | +* make fixing bindists easier |
| 214 | + - implement revisions in GHCup: https://github.com/haskell/ghcup-hs/issues/361 |
| 215 | + - make it easy to update an older GHC branch and re-run the release pipeline |
| 216 | +- Make building upstream release binaries easier |
| 217 | + * https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/9461 |
| 218 | + * https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server/issues/3878 |
| 219 | + |
| 220 | +One main idea is that bindists should be primarily tested **on the users system**, because that is where they're going to run. |
| 221 | +It is great to know that e.g. the test suite passes on GHC CI, but that may have little value in different environments. |
| 222 | +Additionally, issues with tests can flow back to upstream developers and we may develop workflows and processes to streamline |
| 223 | +this type of feedback. Early release candidates can assist with this workflow. |
| 224 | + |
| 225 | +Another perception shift necessary is that upstream projects should consider that their build system |
| 226 | +are end-user interfaces, making it easier for both distributors and end-user to build release binaries correctly themselves. |
| 227 | + |
| 228 | +### Phase 3 |
| 229 | + |
| 230 | +In phase 3, we will mainly focus on making nightlies available for GHC and cabal. This will require |
| 231 | +coming up with a permanent storage solution and very robust nightly pipelines. |
| 232 | + |
| 233 | +HLS nightlies may be added as well. |
| 234 | + |
| 235 | +## Timeline |
| 236 | + |
| 237 | +* phase 1 (6 months): proof of concept of a central GitHub CI building the entire toolchain |
| 238 | +* phase 2 (9 months): bindist testing workflow, automated integration with GHCup, etc. |
| 239 | +* phase 3 (12+ months): nightlies working for GHC and cabal and maybe HLS |
| 240 | + |
| 241 | +## Budget |
| 242 | + |
| 243 | +We would like to have a full-time developer work on this, at least partly. But at the moment, |
| 244 | +we don't have anyone to propose and hiring an external contractor for this role may or may not |
| 245 | +be helpful, since this requires significant DevX experience and commitment to the specified goals. |
| 246 | + |
| 247 | +As such, we propose the "phase 1" of this proposal that focuses on advancing the existing GitHub CI |
| 248 | +support for the GitHub Haskell organization, spearheaded by @angerman (providing aarch64 linux and |
| 249 | +darwin M1 self-hosted machines). This infrastructure is already used by GHCup, HLS and other projects |
| 250 | +and needs more runners. |
| 251 | + |
| 252 | +Github actions at the moment does not provide all platforms. So the budget proposal to close the platform gap on GitHub actions is as follows (all prices in USD): |
| 253 | + |
| 254 | +- FreeBSD x86_64 private runner on [vultr](https://www.vultr.com/pricing/), utilizing [github-act-runner](https://github.com/ChristopherHX/github-act-runner), instance with 8vCPU, 16 GB Memory, 150GB storage |
| 255 | + * monthly: $160 |
| 256 | + * yearly: $1,920 |
| 257 | +- Linux aarch64 private runner on [AWS](https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-uzg6o44ep3ugw) (m6g.xlarge instance) |
| 258 | + * hourly: $0.154 |
| 259 | + * monthly: $112.5 |
| 260 | + * yearly: $1,350 |
| 261 | +- Darwin M1 private runner on [macstadium](https://www.macstadium.com/pricing), instance with M1 8 Core, 16 GB Memory, 1 TB SSD |
| 262 | + * monthly: $179 |
| 263 | + * yearly: $2,148 |
| 264 | + |
| 265 | +To host one additional private runner per all these platform, the yearly cost would be: **$5,418** |
| 266 | + |
| 267 | +We may request more runners depending on the demand, so it may very well be 3 runners per platform, resulting in yearly cost of: $16,254 |
| 268 | + |
| 269 | +For FreeBSD it is also possible to buy [Cirrus CI compute credits](https://cirrus-ci.org/pricing/#compute-credits), |
| 270 | +which amount to a similar value of: $1,576.8 |
| 271 | + |
| 272 | +As such, we estimate the cost for phase 1 to be between 5000 to 16000 USD. The benefit of this investment is not confined to |
| 273 | +the midstream bindist proposal, but to the entirety of the GitHub Haskell organization CI infrastructure |
| 274 | +(including GHCup, HLS, Cabal, bytestring, text, unix, ...). |
| 275 | + |
| 276 | +Phase 2 and 3 may need follow-up proposals with more concrete implementation strategy, cost analysis |
| 277 | +and potentially hiring a full-time employee. |
| 278 | + |
| 279 | +## Stakeholders |
| 280 | + |
| 281 | +* GHC developers |
| 282 | +* cabal developers |
| 283 | +* stack developers |
| 284 | +* HLS developers |
| 285 | +* VSCode Haskell developers |
| 286 | +* GHCup developers |
| 287 | +* Haskell toolchain end users |
| 288 | + |
| 289 | +## Success |
| 290 | + |
| 291 | +* reliable, continuously maintained bindists, readily available |
| 292 | + |
0 commit comments