Work on gitlab ci (used for release artifacts)

[jneira]

• Sooner or later we would want to make a release :wink:
• Since 3.6.0.0, release artifacts are generated in the gitlab mirror repo: https://gitlab.haskell.org/haskell/cabal, pushing a tag
• Last repo builds are failing for some archs, f.e. https://gitlab.haskell.org/haskell/cabal/-/pipelines/48561
  • aarch64-darwin: https://gitlab.haskell.org/haskell/cabal/-/jobs/969257
  • x86_64-freebsd13: https://gitlab.haskell.org/haskell/cabal/-/jobs/969254
• The config of those builds have diverged from the hls one, which builds the same archs
  • Afaics the hls config was inspired in cabal one but got several patches thereafter
  • For example in hls nix is not used anymore for aarch64-darwin-m1
• The gitlab builds does not run any test suite so we dont have the certainly they will work
  • But start to run the test suite could open a can of worms, from legitimate tests fails to errors only visible running the tests
  • So some sort of manual testing could complement automatic tests if they are not reliable

So i think before the release we should

• [x] fix failing builds (it will need update ci config)
• [x] refactor ci config to make it as simple as possible (removing nix config f.e.)
• [ ] run the test suite in as many archs as possible, without blocking the release

//cc @Mikolaj @hasufell @gbaz

[Mikolaj]

Certainly.

[hasufell]

x86_64-freebsd13: https://gitlab.haskell.org/haskell/cabal/-/jobs/969254

x86_64-freebsd12 should be enough

aarch64-darwin: https://gitlab.haskell.org/haskell/cabal/-/jobs/969257

Yeah, because nix is sh*te. That's why ghcup and HLS now use brew instead. You can adapt cabals gitlab config by reading:

• https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server/blob/fd34887f5301d74b0c977dd08dfb7db6e12a5b06/.gitlab-ci.yml#L463-L485
• https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server/blob/master/.gitlab/brew.sh

Make sure the env vars are set correctly like above, otherwise brew will leak artifacts into the host system, which will upset angerman.

[jneira]

@hasufell many thanks for the info, will try to not bother ghc team :wink:

I've checked the hls config has no longer the windows ghcup bootstrapping:

https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/906a8bcabc307c6c607cf1b9826a6b329e3ceb7f/.gitlab-ci.yml#L146-L154

maybe it would not be necessary here neither?

[hasufell]

It does: https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server/blob/30d48ed705e929e4ff7da16b00ca4946ea850407/.gitlab/ci.sh#L10-L46

[jneira]

Oh yeah i missed

https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server/blob/30d48ed705e929e4ff7da16b00ca4946ea850407/.gitlab/ci.sh#L44

thanks!

[jneira]

I've started to work on this, pushing cheching tags to my gitlab cabal repo:

• https://github.com/jneira/cabal/tree/rework-gitlab
• last pipeline: https://gitlab.haskell.org/jneira/cabal/-/pipelines/49059

it looks promising but aarch64-linux-deb10 is failing with a weird error:

Getting source from Git repository 00:05
Fetching changes with git depth set to 50...
Reinitialized existing Git repository in /builds/jneira/cabal/.git/
fatal: unable to access 'https://gitlab.haskell.org/jneira/cabal.git/': Could not resolve host: gitlab.haskell.org

[hasufell]

I've started to work on this, pushing cheching tags to my gitlab cabal repo:

• https://github.com/jneira/cabal/tree/rework-gitlab
• last pipeline: https://gitlab.haskell.org/jneira/cabal/-/pipelines/49059

it looks promising but aarch64-linux-deb10 is failing with a weird error:

Getting source from Git repository 00:05
Fetching changes with git depth set to 50...
Reinitialized existing Git repository in /builds/jneira/cabal/.git/
fatal: unable to access 'https://gitlab.haskell.org/jneira/cabal.git/': Could not resolve host: gitlab.haskell.org

Yes angerman's runners have some network issues afair.

[jneira]

ok with #8051 merged we have the CI green my plan is add testing using validate.sh (like GH workflow does) so I would wait for #8045, which makes the script work for windows

[ulysses4ever]

@jneira do you think anything else can be done for this or should it be closed?

[jneira]

@ulysses4ever thanks for the ping, hmm the unchecked box in the description is still relevant imo

[Mikolaj]

Just noting here that @chreekat prodded the CI and the CI snapped into attention and there's substantial hope cabal 3.10 binary release is not going to be derailed. However, this a limited effort, only for releasing, so a test suite is out of scope.