Win32 binary disappeared
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Neil Mitchell
Dec 7, 2017, 7:13:03 AM12/7/17
to haskell-stack
Hi,
The page https://www.stackage.org/stack/ links to
https://www.stackage.org/stack/windows-i386, which now gives a 404.
Where did the 32bit binary disappear to?
Thanks, Neil
The page https://www.stackage.org/stack/ links to
https://www.stackage.org/stack/windows-i386, which now gives a 404.
Where did the 32bit binary disappear to?
Thanks, Neil
Michael Snoyman
Dec 7, 2017, 7:28:36 AM12/7/17
to Neil Mitchell, haskell-stack
I believe there are plans to release it still. As the release announcement mentioned, we didn't complete the normal release procedure to rush the fix for GHC 8.2, and some binaries are still being compiled.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "haskell-stack" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haskell-stack+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to haskel...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/haskell-stack/CAKcFpmJY27nB%3D%2BCiS0_6UZ56ePb-DH_0H7c-0VdommRmWqdD%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Neil Mitchell
Dec 7, 2017, 7:49:52 AM12/7/17
to Michael Snoyman, haskell-stack
Can I suggest that in future you leave the old binaries around until
the new ones are available? My Windows CI automatically hits that URL,
so it broke :(
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Michael Snoyman
<michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe there are plans to release it still. As the release announcement
> mentioned, we didn't complete the normal release procedure to rush the fix
> for GHC 8.2, and some binaries are still being compiled.
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Neil Mitchell <ndmit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The page https://www.stackage.org/stack/ links to
>> https://www.stackage.org/stack/windows-i386, which now gives a 404.
>> Where did the 32bit binary disappear to?
>>
>> Thanks, Neil
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "haskell-stack" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to haskell-stac...@googlegroups.com.
the new ones are available? My Windows CI automatically hits that URL,
so it broke :(
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Michael Snoyman
<michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe there are plans to release it still. As the release announcement
> mentioned, we didn't complete the normal release procedure to rush the fix
> for GHC 8.2, and some binaries are still being compiled.
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Neil Mitchell <ndmit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The page https://www.stackage.org/stack/ links to
>> https://www.stackage.org/stack/windows-i386, which now gives a 404.
>> Where did the 32bit binary disappear to?
>>
>> Thanks, Neil
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "haskell-stack" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
Michael Snoyman
Dec 7, 2017, 8:34:54 AM12/7/17
to Neil Mitchell, haskell-stack
We should probably change the way that stackage.org finds binaries. All of the old binaries are present on Github still, it's just the lookup that isn't working, since it only considered the most recent release.
Yes, this is an ugly situation, we're still trying to play catch-up.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Neil Mitchell <ndmit...@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I suggest that in future you leave the old binaries around until
the new ones are available? My Windows CI automatically hits that URL,
so it broke :(
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Michael Snoyman
<michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe there are plans to release it still. As the release announcement
> mentioned, we didn't complete the normal release procedure to rush the fix
> for GHC 8.2, and some binaries are still being compiled.
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Neil Mitchell <ndmit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The page https://www.stackage.org/stack/ links to
>> https://www.stackage.org/stack/windows-i386, which now gives a 404.
>> Where did the 32bit binary disappear to?
>>
>> Thanks, Neil
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "haskell-stack" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to haskell-stack+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Neil Mitchell
Dec 7, 2017, 9:18:36 AM12/7/17
to Emanuel Borsboom, snoyberg, haskell-stack
With my open source library hat on, CI should be the canary in the
coalmine for my users, not a perfectly reproducible thing that proves
it can be installed on an old version my users aren't using. I think
for public stuff the redirect is exactly the right thing. I also
"stack init" my projects on the CI to test with the latest versions,
which is even worse for breaking consistency. I combine that with CRON
jobs that kick off all my CI things nightly, so I am explicitly
testing for the passage of time.
With my commercial developer hat on, there's no way I'd have
redirected to an arbitrary stack! A very valid strategy for the right
use case.
Thanks for the binaries!
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Emanuel Borsboom <ma...@fpcomplete.com> wrote:
> Ha, my unintelligible English here is probably due to staying up way too
> late getting stack-1.6.1 out :) Let me try that again...
>
> It might also be good if our CI examples recommend the best practice of
> specifying an exact Stack version by pointing directly to a specific Github
> release rather than using the convenience redirects. What happened here is
> one example of breakage if CI scripts don't specify a version; another would
> be that a behaviour change in Stack breaks CI.
>
> Also, more importantly, the Windows 32-bit binaries are up now!
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2017, at 6:13 AM, Emanuel Borsboom <ma...@fpcomplete.com> wrote:
>
> It might also be good if CI examples we recommend the best practice of
> specifying an exact Stack version by pointing directly to a specific Github
> release rather than using the convenience redirects. What happened here is
> one example of breakage if CI scripts specify stick to a specific version;
> another would be that a behaviour change in Stack breaks CI.
>
> On Dec 7, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Michael Snoyman <michael...@gmail.com>
>> >> email to haskell-stac...@googlegroups.com.
coalmine for my users, not a perfectly reproducible thing that proves
it can be installed on an old version my users aren't using. I think
for public stuff the redirect is exactly the right thing. I also
"stack init" my projects on the CI to test with the latest versions,
which is even worse for breaking consistency. I combine that with CRON
jobs that kick off all my CI things nightly, so I am explicitly
testing for the passage of time.
With my commercial developer hat on, there's no way I'd have
redirected to an arbitrary stack! A very valid strategy for the right
use case.
Thanks for the binaries!
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Emanuel Borsboom <ma...@fpcomplete.com> wrote:
> Ha, my unintelligible English here is probably due to staying up way too
> late getting stack-1.6.1 out :) Let me try that again...
>
> It might also be good if our CI examples recommend the best practice of
> specifying an exact Stack version by pointing directly to a specific Github
> release rather than using the convenience redirects. What happened here is
> one example of breakage if CI scripts don't specify a version; another would
> be that a behaviour change in Stack breaks CI.
>
> Also, more importantly, the Windows 32-bit binaries are up now!
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2017, at 6:13 AM, Emanuel Borsboom <ma...@fpcomplete.com> wrote:
>
> It might also be good if CI examples we recommend the best practice of
> specifying an exact Stack version by pointing directly to a specific Github
> release rather than using the convenience redirects. What happened here is
> one example of breakage if CI scripts specify stick to a specific version;
> another would be that a behaviour change in Stack breaks CI.
>
> On Dec 7, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Michael Snoyman <michael...@gmail.com>
>> >> To post to this group, send email to haskel...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/haskell-stack/CAKcFpmJY27nB%3D%2BCiS0_6UZ56ePb-DH_0H7c-0VdommRmWqdD%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/haskell-stack/CAKcFpmJY27nB%3D%2BCiS0_6UZ56ePb-DH_0H7c-0VdommRmWqdD%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "haskell-stack" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to haskell-stac...@googlegroups.com.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "haskell-stack" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> To post to this group, send email to haskel...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/haskell-stack/CAKA2Jg%2BzQRVzCGPgSp%3D%2BWRSoREyzZHgNSyCqozODLgtgUpK7vQ%40mail.gmail.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
Emanuel Borsboom
Dec 8, 2017, 1:37:57 AM12/8/17
to snoyberg, Neil Mitchell, haskell-stack
Ha, my unintelligible English here is probably due to staying up way too late getting stack-1.6.1 out :) Let me try that again...
It might also be good if our CI examples recommend the best practice of specifying an exact Stack version by pointing directly to a specific Github release rather than using the convenience redirects. What happened here is one example of breakage if CI scripts don't specify a version; another would be that a behaviour change in Stack breaks CI.
Also, more importantly, the Windows 32-bit binaries are up now!
On Dec 7, 2017, at 6:13 AM, Emanuel Borsboom <ma...@fpcomplete.com> wrote:
It might also be good if CI examples we recommend the best practice of specifying an exact Stack version by pointing directly to a specific Github release rather than using the convenience redirects. What happened here is one example of breakage if CI scripts specify stick to a specific version; another would be that a behaviour change in Stack breaks CI.
On Dec 7, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Michael Snoyman <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haskell-stac...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/haskell-stack/CAKA2Jg%2BzQRVzCGPgSp%3D%2BWRSoREyzZHgNSyCqozODLgtgUpK7vQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Emanuel Borsboom
Dec 8, 2017, 1:37:57 AM12/8/17
to Neil Mitchell, snoyberg, haskell-stack
That makes a lot of sense as a distinction. Thanks for you open source canary taking one for the team, hope we didn't kill it and that it makes a full recovery :)
Emanuel Borsboom
Dec 8, 2017, 1:37:57 AM12/8/17
to snoyberg, Neil Mitchell, haskell-stack
It might also be good if CI examples we recommend the best practice of specifying an exact Stack version by pointing directly to a specific Github release rather than using the convenience redirects. What happened here is one example of breakage if CI scripts specify stick to a specific version; another would be that a behaviour change in Stack breaks CI.
On Dec 7, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Michael Snoyman <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haskell-stac...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/haskell-stack/CAKA2Jg%2BzQRVzCGPgSp%3D%2BWRSoREyzZHgNSyCqozODLgtgUpK7vQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages