I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand your recommendation. Are you saying that I should ideally replace all usages of `License` in the Stack codebase with `Either SPDX.License License`? That _should_ be possible, the only questions I'd have are: 1. We additionally grab license info from the GHC package dump. Would there be any problem parsing that license field into the old License data type and storing as Right? 2. If we're going to have to treat this as arbitrary text anyway, is there any reason not to represent it as `newtype TextualLicense = TextualLicense Text` or similar, and convert immediately with `display`? On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Oleg Grenrus wrote:

Hi Michael,

thanks for your comments!

- The allBuildInfo change is https://github.com/haskell/cabal/commit/8fc10320a5dc4898927c84ad6a2dce 7965ef30db, I agree with Herbert on this. New `allBuildInfo` implementation is correct given the name. There was even a TODO to make that change. `reallyAllBuildInfo` would been silly. I also didn't felt ok to change the type to `Traversal` (we have lenses, please try out them too and tell if something is missing!). We'll highlight the change in the changelog, as it's easy to miss.

- The lack of SPDX changelog entry is my bad. It was a series of patches, and the changelog + manual update is still not done. I try to summarise: - `cabal-version: 2.2` files use SPDX expression syntax for `license: ` field. PackageDescription's licenseRaw will be Left expr, expr :: Distribution.SPDX.License.License - `cabal-version: 2.0` files still use old `License` syntax and type, licenseRaw is `Right l`, l :: Distribution.License.License - I recommend treating the field as opaque. You can `either display display` to show it - Next best choice is to use `SPDX.License` as in that direction conversion is lossless (licenseToSPDX), but have to workaround lack of e.g. `OtherLicense` as a concept (IIRC it's converted to LicenseRef:OtherLicense which is valid SPDX-License-Id). This might be necessary if you plan to read (human readable) text back.

Oleg

On 20.02.2018 15:47, Michael Snoyman wrote:

...

Hi all,

Oleg mentioned to me on Reddit that a 2.2 branch has been cut for Cabal, and recommended we try to upgrade Stack to it. I'm sharing information here on that process in case it's useful to others, either as feedback on the API changes, or help for others going through similar upgrades. If anyone would rather that I do or do not post such reports in the future, let me know.

I've opened a PR for this change[1], which currently is a single commit[2]. As you can see from the change to stack.yaml[3], I needed to refer to the commit of Cabal in question, and turn on `allow-newer` for some packages (cabal-doctest and http-api-data) with restrictive upper bounds on Cabal. Both of these packages compiled without issue.

No change was necessary to Stack's Setup.hs file.

Most of the changes so far were compile-time errors, which is a Good Thing. Changes I had to make:

* The build type is no longer a Maybe field. (As a user: this is a nice change, no longer a need to guess about what a Nothing value means.) * There are now two License types, the original one and the SPDX variant. I don't understand what this change is about, some further explanation in the docs or the ChangeLog would definitely be appreciated. But hacking my way through the types seems to have worked. * Parsing a package description now works on a ByteString instead of a String. This allowed me to remove some UTF8 conversion and BOM-stripping code, which is very nice. * The new parsing API exposes the cabal file version when that prevented the parse (at least, that's my understanding). The changes to accommodate the new API were relatively trivial, so another +1 here. * Also: getting file position information for warnings and errors is _very_ nice. +1

I haven't done extensive testing yet, but I've so far only found one bug due to runtime changes: the behavior of allBuildInfo has changed to now include non-buildable components. This resulted in some confusion until I reviewed the changelog more closely. If I could make a request, it would be that, in the future, new runtime behavior come with a new function name, to convert runtime errors into compile time errors. This was _not_ a particularly difficult issue to work around though, in large part thanks to the changelog.

I'll continue testing this branch of Stack. Our plans are to merge this to master, and release Stack 1.7.0 close to the Cabal 2.2 release date.

Michael

[1] https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/files [2] https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/ a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5 [3] https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/ a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5#diff- fafd0cdcd559a7b124cc61c29413fb54

_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel

_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel

Alright, I've updated the PR to use `Either SPDX.License License`: https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/6679aafe99a087d... The only difference from your description that I ran into is that there's no Text instance for SPDX.License, meaning instead of: either display display I ended up with display . either licenseFromSPDX id Is it intentional that there is no Text instance for SPDX.License? On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Oleg Grenrus wrote:

1. The InstalledPackageInfo license field is also `Either SPDX.License License` [1] and you can get a list of IPIs conviently with `HcPkg.dump` [2] 2. It's up to you, if `Text` is enough, go for it. In the future you might want to provide some license reports, where you'll need structured license information, but then "reverting" `TextualLicense` will be a type-directed, so it's up to you.

Oleg

- https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/32fea06a1023a507d7dc16b29f5425 38c0b55e46/Cabal/Distribution/Types/InstalledPackageInfo.hs#L50 - https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/32fea06a1023a507d7dc16b29f5425 38c0b55e46/Cabal/Distribution/Simple/Program/HcPkg.hs#L246

On 20.02.2018 19:45, Michael Snoyman wrote:

...

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand your recommendation. Are you saying that I should ideally replace all usages of `License` in the Stack codebase with `Either SPDX.License License`? That _should_ be possible, the only questions I'd have are:

1. We additionally grab license info from the GHC package dump. Would there be any problem parsing that license field into the old License data type and storing as Right? 2. If we're going to have to treat this as arbitrary text anyway, is there any reason not to represent it as `newtype TextualLicense = TextualLicense Text` or similar, and convert immediately with `display`?

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Oleg Grenrus mailto:oleg.grenrus@iki.fi> wrote:

Hi Michael,

thanks for your comments!

- The allBuildInfo change is https://github.com/haskell/cabal/commit/ 8fc10320a5dc4898927c84ad6a2dce7965ef30db <https://github.com/haskell/cabal/commit/ 8fc10320a5dc4898927c84ad6a2dce7965ef30db>, I agree with Herbert on this. New `allBuildInfo` implementation is correct given the name. There was even a TODO to make that change. `reallyAllBuildInfo` would been silly. I also didn't felt ok to change the type to `Traversal` (we have lenses, please try out them too and tell if something is missing!). We'll highlight the change in the changelog, as it's easy to miss.

- The lack of SPDX changelog entry is my bad. It was a series of patches, and the changelog + manual update is still not done. I try to summarise: - `cabal-version: 2.2` files use SPDX expression syntax for `license: ` field. PackageDescription's licenseRaw will be Left expr, expr :: Distribution.SPDX.License.License - `cabal-version: 2.0` files still use old `License` syntax and type, licenseRaw is `Right l`, l :: Distribution.License.License - I recommend treating the field as opaque. You can `either display display` to show it - Next best choice is to use `SPDX.License` as in that direction conversion is lossless (licenseToSPDX), but have to workaround lack of e.g. `OtherLicense` as a concept (IIRC it's converted to LicenseRef:OtherLicense which is valid SPDX-License-Id). This might be necessary if you plan to read (human readable) text back.

Oleg

On 20.02.2018 15:47, Michael Snoyman wrote: > Hi all, > > Oleg mentioned to me on Reddit that a 2.2 branch has been cut for > Cabal, and recommended we try to upgrade Stack to it. I'm sharing > information here on that process in case it's useful to others, either > as feedback on the API changes, or help for others going through > similar upgrades. If anyone would rather that I do or do not post such > reports in the future, let me know. > > I've opened a PR for this change[1], which currently is a single > commit[2]. As you can see from the change to stack.yaml[3], I needed > to refer to the commit of Cabal in question, and turn on `allow-newer` > for some packages (cabal-doctest and http-api-data) with restrictive > upper bounds on Cabal. Both of these packages compiled without issue. > > No change was necessary to Stack's Setup.hs file. > > Most of the changes so far were compile-time errors, which is a Good > Thing. Changes I had to make: > > * The build type is no longer a Maybe field. (As a user: this is a > nice change, no longer a need to guess about what a Nothing value means.) > * There are now two License types, the original one and the SPDX > variant. I don't understand what this change is about, some further > explanation in the docs or the ChangeLog would definitely be > appreciated. But hacking my way through the types seems to have worked. > * Parsing a package description now works on a ByteString instead of a > String. This allowed me to remove some UTF8 conversion and > BOM-stripping code, which is very nice. > * The new parsing API exposes the cabal file version when that > prevented the parse (at least, that's my understanding). The changes > to accommodate the new API were relatively trivial, so another +1 here. > * Also: getting file position information for warnings and errors is > _very_ nice. +1 > > I haven't done extensive testing yet, but I've so far only found one > bug due to runtime changes: the behavior of allBuildInfo has changed > to now include non-buildable components. This resulted in some > confusion until I reviewed the changelog more closely. If I could make > a request, it would be that, in the future, new runtime behavior come > with a new function name, to convert runtime errors into compile time > errors. This was _not_ a particularly difficult issue to work around > though, in large part thanks to the changelog. > > I'll continue testing this branch of Stack. Our plans are to merge > this to master, and release Stack 1.7.0 close to the Cabal 2.2 release > date. > > Michael > > [1] https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/files https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/files > [2] > https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/ a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5 <https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/ a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5> > [3] > https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/ a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5#diff- fafd0cdcd559a7b124cc61c29413fb54 <https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/ a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5#diff- fafd0cdcd559a7b124cc61c29413fb54> > > > _______________________________________________ > cabal-devel mailing list > cabal-devel@haskell.org mailto:cabal-devel@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel

_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org mailto:cabal-devel@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel

Got it, thanks. Mikhail: thank you for the feedback too. If you want me to review any updates, let me know. On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Oleg Grenrus wrote:

Good point. There aren't ReadP-parser for SPDX.License, so no Text instance either. But there is `Distribution.Pretty.Pretty` instance (`prettyShow`).

- Oleg

...

Alright, I've updated the PR to use `Either SPDX.License License`:

https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/ 6679aafe99a087dd6aac341fce965f4067e1be77

The only difference from your description that I ran into is that there's no Text instance for SPDX.License, meaning instead of:

either display display

I ended up with

display . either licenseFromSPDX id

Is it intentional that there is no Text instance for SPDX.License?

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Oleg Grenrus mailto:oleg.grenrus@iki.fi> wrote:

1. The InstalledPackageInfo license field is also `Either SPDX.License License` [1] and you can get a list of IPIs conviently with `HcPkg.dump` [2] 2. It's up to you, if `Text` is enough, go for it. In the future you might want to provide some license reports, where you'll need structured license information, but then "reverting" `TextualLicense` will be a type-directed, so it's up to you.

Oleg

- https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/32fea06a1023a507d7dc16b29f5425 38c0b55e46/Cabal/Distribution/Types/InstalledPackageInfo.hs#L50 <https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/ 32fea06a1023a507d7dc16b29f542538c0b55e46/Cabal/Distribution/ Types/InstalledPackageInfo.hs#L50> - https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/32fea06a1023a507d7dc16b29f5425 38c0b55e46/Cabal/Distribution/Simple/Program/HcPkg.hs#L246 <https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/ 32fea06a1023a507d7dc16b29f542538c0b55e46/Cabal/Distribution/ Simple/Program/HcPkg.hs#L246>

On 20.02.2018 19:45, Michael Snoyman wrote: > I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand your recommendation. Are > you saying that I should ideally replace all usages of `License` in > the Stack codebase with `Either SPDX.License License`? That _should_ > be possible, the only questions I'd have are: > > 1. We additionally grab license info from the GHC package dump. Would > there be any problem parsing that license field into the old License > data type and storing as Right? > 2. If we're going to have to treat this as arbitrary text anyway, is > there any reason not to represent it as `newtype TextualLicense = > TextualLicense Text` or similar, and convert immediately with `display`? > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Oleg Grenrus mailto:oleg.grenrus@iki.fi > mailto:oleg.grenrus@iki.fi>> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > thanks for your comments! > > - The allBuildInfo change is > https://github.com/haskell/cabal/commit/ 8fc10320a5dc4898927c84ad6a2dce7965ef30db <https://github.com/haskell/cabal/commit/ 8fc10320a5dc4898927c84ad6a2dce7965ef30db> > <https://github.com/haskell/cabal/commit/ 8fc10320a5dc4898927c84ad6a2dce7965ef30db <https://github.com/haskell/cabal/commit/ 8fc10320a5dc4898927c84ad6a2dce7965ef30db>>, > I agree with Herbert on this. New `allBuildInfo` implementation is > correct given the name. There was even a TODO to make that change. > `reallyAllBuildInfo` would been silly. I also didn't felt ok to change > the type to `Traversal` (we have lenses, please try out them too and > tell if something is missing!). We'll highlight the change in the > changelog, as it's easy to miss. > > - The lack of SPDX changelog entry is my bad. It was a series of > patches, and the changelog + manual update is still not done. I try to > summarise: > - `cabal-version: 2.2` files use SPDX expression syntax for > `license: ` field. PackageDescription's licenseRaw will be Left expr, > expr :: Distribution.SPDX.License.License > - `cabal-version: 2.0` files still use old `License` syntax and > type, licenseRaw is `Right l`, l :: Distribution.License.License > - I recommend treating the field as opaque. You can `either > display > display` to show it > - Next best choice is to use `SPDX.License` as in that > direction > conversion is lossless (licenseToSPDX), but have to workaround lack of > e.g. `OtherLicense` as a concept (IIRC it's converted to > LicenseRef:OtherLicense which is valid SPDX-License-Id). This might be > necessary if you plan to read (human readable) text back. > > Oleg > > On 20.02.2018 15:47, Michael Snoyman wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Oleg mentioned to me on Reddit that a 2.2 branch has been cut for > > Cabal, and recommended we try to upgrade Stack to it. I'm sharing > > information here on that process in case it's useful to others, > either > > as feedback on the API changes, or help for others going through > > similar upgrades. If anyone would rather that I do or do not > post such > > reports in the future, let me know. > > > > I've opened a PR for this change[1], which currently is a single > > commit[2]. As you can see from the change to stack.yaml[3], I needed > > to refer to the commit of Cabal in question, and turn on > `allow-newer` > > for some packages (cabal-doctest and http-api-data) with restrictive > > upper bounds on Cabal. Both of these packages compiled without > issue. > > > > No change was necessary to Stack's Setup.hs file. > > > > Most of the changes so far were compile-time errors, which is a Good > > Thing. Changes I had to make: > > > > * The build type is no longer a Maybe field. (As a user: this is a > > nice change, no longer a need to guess about what a Nothing > value means.) > > * There are now two License types, the original one and the SPDX > > variant. I don't understand what this change is about, some further > > explanation in the docs or the ChangeLog would definitely be > > appreciated. But hacking my way through the types seems to have > worked. > > * Parsing a package description now works on a ByteString > instead of a > > String. This allowed me to remove some UTF8 conversion and > > BOM-stripping code, which is very nice. > > * The new parsing API exposes the cabal file version when

On 20.02.2018 20:28, Michael Snoyman wrote: that

...

> > prevented the parse (at least, that's my understanding). The changes > > to accommodate the new API were relatively trivial, so

another

...

> +1 here. > > * Also: getting file position information for warnings and errors is > > _very_ nice. +1 > > > > I haven't done extensive testing yet, but I've so far only found one > > bug due to runtime changes: the behavior of allBuildInfo has changed > > to now include non-buildable components. This resulted in

some

...

> > confusion until I reviewed the changelog more closely. If I > could make > > a request, it would be that, in the future, new runtime behavior > come > > with a new function name, to convert runtime errors into compile > time > > errors. This was _not_ a particularly difficult issue to work around > > though, in large part thanks to the changelog. > > > > I'll continue testing this branch of Stack. Our plans are to merge > > this to master, and release Stack 1.7.0 close to the Cabal

2.2

...

> release > > date. > > > > Michael > > > > [1] https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/files https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/files > <https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/files https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/files> > > [2] > > > https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/

a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5

...

<https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/

a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5>

...

> <https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/

a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5

...

<https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/

a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5>>

...

> > [3] > > > https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/

a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5#diff- fafd0cdcd559a7b124cc61c29413fb54

...

<https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/

a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5#diff- fafd0cdcd559a7b124cc61c29413fb54>

...

> <https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/

a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5#diff- fafd0cdcd559a7b124cc61c29413fb54

...

<https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/3878/commits/

a101341d04213d6dd8e0cf16d2f2fef8e7ed5cd5#diff- fafd0cdcd559a7b124cc61c29413fb54>>

...

> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cabal-devel mailing list > > cabal-devel@haskell.org mailto:cabal-devel@haskell.org mailto:cabal-devel@haskell.org> > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel > <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel> > > > > _______________________________________________ > cabal-devel mailing list > cabal-devel@haskell.org mailto:cabal-devel@haskell.org mailto:cabal-devel@haskell.org> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel > <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel> > >