Removing Hoopl dependency?

Herbert Valerio Riedel hvriedel at
Fri Jun 9 09:16:14 UTC 2017

Hi Simon,

On 2017-06-09 at 09:50:51 +0200, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs wrote:


>> Stackage only allows one version of each package
> I didn’t know that, but I can see it makes sense.  That makes a strong
> case for re-doing it as a new package hoopl2

The limitations of Stackage's design shouldn't drive nor limit
library design. Cabal has been moving to finally allow us to have
multiple versions and even multiple configurations/instances of the same
version of a package registered in the package db at the same time, and
subjecting ourselves to Stackage's limitations after all the work done
(and more in that direction is being considered to push the boundaries
even further) to that effect *now* seems quite backward to me.

If we push the idea to its conclusion, that we shall rather publish a
new package rather than release a new major version of a package to
workaround Stackage, you'd see a proliferation of number-suffixed
packages on Hackage.  Moreover, packages which can easily support
multiple major versions of a package would have to use conditional logic
boilerplate in their .cabal files (which again would be incompatible
with Stackage's inherent limitations, as it allows only *one
configuration* of a given package version).

We should build upon the facilities we already have in place; and major
versions are here to encode the epoch/generation of an API; moreover, as
a big advantage over classic SemVer, we also have this 2-component major
version which gives us more flexibility for versioning during developing
two or more epochs of an API in parallel. So hoopl-1.* and hoopl-2.*
could keep evolving independently, each branch being able to perform
major version increments in their respective version namespace.


More information about the ghc-devs mailing list