-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 843
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bad C-c handling during 'stack init' #3073
Comments
We don't have any such retry logic, looks like it is an upstream issue with hackage-security: haskell/hackage-security#187 |
This commit SHOULD NOT BE MERGED TO master. It adds an extra-dep for hackage-security from Hackage to work around #3073 and haskell/hackage-security#187. Hopefully this will be merged and released to Hackage.
I've created a patch for hackage-security which should hopefully address this: I've also pushed a branch |
I just tested the repro above: with previous builds of Stack against unpatched |
NOTE: This is included via an extra-dep, which would constitute the first time Stack would include a patched version of an upstream library. This is due to the fact that haskell/hackage-security#203 is likely not going to be merged, despite fixing issues affecting Stack. This leaves us with (AFAICT) 4 choices at the Stack level: 1. Continue using the officially released upstream version of hackage-security, bugs and all 2. Fork hackage-security on Hackage, and depend on the fork 3. Inline the code from hackage-security into Stack itself, and drop the explicit dependency on hackage-security 4. Include hackage-security via an `extra-dep` pointing at a Git commit. Our official builds will use the patched version of hackage-security, and anyone building from Hackage will end up with the unpatched version This PR represents approach (4). If and when the PR is merged and released to Hackage, this becomes a non-issue. But generally speaking, we should have a policy in Stack for handling these kinds of upstream issues cases.
Thanks for the contributions upstream. I'd suggest to persist with getting the contributions or equivalent fixes into the upstream package as that way everyone benefits from everyone else's improvements. |
NOTE: This is included via an extra-dep, which would constitute the first time Stack would include a patched version of an upstream library. This is due to the fact that haskell/hackage-security#203 is likely not going to be merged, despite fixing issues affecting Stack. This leaves us with (AFAICT) 4 choices at the Stack level: 1. Continue using the officially released upstream version of hackage-security, bugs and all 2. Fork hackage-security on Hackage, and depend on the fork 3. Inline the code from hackage-security into Stack itself, and drop the explicit dependency on hackage-security 4. Include hackage-security via an `extra-dep` pointing at a Git commit. Our official builds will use the patched version of hackage-security, and anyone building from Hackage will end up with the unpatched version This PR represents approach (4). If and when the PR is merged and released to Hackage, this becomes a non-issue. But generally speaking, we should have a policy in Stack for handling these kinds of upstream issues cases.
NOTE: This is included via an extra-dep, which would constitute the first time Stack would include a patched version of an upstream library. This is due to the fact that haskell/hackage-security#203 is likely not going to be merged, despite fixing issues affecting Stack. This leaves us with (AFAICT) 4 choices at the Stack level: 1. Continue using the officially released upstream version of hackage-security, bugs and all 2. Fork hackage-security on Hackage, and depend on the fork 3. Inline the code from hackage-security into Stack itself, and drop the explicit dependency on hackage-security 4. Include hackage-security via an `extra-dep` pointing at a Git commit. Our official builds will use the patched version of hackage-security, and anyone building from Hackage will end up with the unpatched version This PR represents approach (4). If and when the PR is merged and released to Hackage, this becomes a non-issue. But generally speaking, we should have a policy in Stack for handling these kinds of upstream issues cases.
…rity Include patched hackage-security for #3073
It looks like hackage-security-0.5.3.0 includes a file locking fix (although it appears to be different than @snoyberg's contributed fix). Can anyone confirm whether that fixes the problem? |
I haven't confirmed myself, but it's probably safe to use.
…On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 3:17 AM Emanuel Borsboom ***@***.***> wrote:
It looks like hackage-security-0.5.3.0
<http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hackage-security-0.5.3.0/changelog>
includes a file locking fix (although it appears to be different than
@snoyberg <https://github.com/snoyberg>'s contributed fix). Can anyone
confirm whether that fixes the problem?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3073 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADBB7NVtxxJis4QkarzQGE0gztp_4Iqks5tjXmJgaJpZM4Mhoxc>
.
|
Problem fixed, closing |
(This is a follow up from the discussion in #3055)
Note the line
UpException user interrupt when using mirror https://s3.amazonaws.com/hackage.fpcomplete.com/
– this is where I pressed C-c.I would have expected stack to abort then but it appears as if stack simply retries downloading the index.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: