On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 at 08:02, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> >> Cc: Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <paaguti@gmail.com>,
> acorallo@gnu.org,
> >>   71356@debbugs.gnu.org
> >> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 06:15:44 +0000
> >>
> >> Sorry for the delayed response;  I don't think that has to be expected.
> >> While use-package can utilise package.el for package management, my
> >> impression is that it is at liberty to be more flexible/declarative.
> >
> > Doesn't use-package utilize package.el already?
> >
> > If not, how does it handle installation and upgrades? by its own code?
>
> By default it uses package.el, but there is an option to change it.
>
> >> > Do you have package-install-upgrade-built-in set non-nil?  If not, can
> >> > you set it non-nil and try the recipe again?
> >>
> >> I have tried it out myself, and it doesn't appear to do anything.  The
> >> issue looks like that `package-installed-p' doesn't respect
> >> package-install-upgrade-built-in or :pin.
> >
> > We should fix that, I think.  If package-install-upgrade-built-in is
> > non-nil, use-package should upgrade built-in packages.
> >
> >> > As for a feature request: what exactly is the feature requested here?
> >> > Are you saying that use-package should automatically upgrade built-in
> >> > packages?  If so, I don't think this will fly, since it would mean
> >> > inconsistencies with package-install.
> >>
> >> IIUC the feature would be that if a use-package form has a
> >>
> >>      :pin gnu
> >>
> >> argument, then this is an indication that we want to install the package
> >> from GNU ELPA, disregarding the fact that Emacs already has a built-in
> >> version of the same package.  Sort of a package-local version of
> >> `package-install-upgrade-built-in'.
> >
> > I'm not sure.  People tend to copy/paste recipes from the Internet
> > without really understanding what they do.  I think a simple :pin
> > should not be sufficient, we need some specialized keyword (in
> > addition to supporting package-install-upgrade-built-in).
>
> To me :pin would make perfect sense, as it explicitly expresses what
> archive we want to follow for package upgrades.
>
> >> I am not familiar with the use-package code, but it seems like we could
> >> implement this generally in package-install, by checking
> >> `package-pinned-packages'.
> >
> > I would prefer not to introduce another indication of whether built-in
> > packages should or should not be upgraded.  If we do, we will next
> > need to decide which one "wins" when they contradict each other.
>
> One idea would be that use-package would check :pin and then
> conditionally bind `package-install-upgrade-built-in' when invoking
> `package-install'.  That being said, I am not a fan of the user option
> any way, and wouldn't mind if we came up with a cleaner solution.
>
> --
>         Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
>

Just as a "parachute", one could obey the global
`package-install-upgrade-built-in`
value and make :pin cry out for built-in packages when the user indicates a
repo and
`package-install-upgrade-built-in`  is nil

My .2cents, /PA
-- 
Fragen sind nicht da, um beantwortet zu werden,
Fragen sind da um gestellt zu werden
Georg Kreisler

Headaches with a Juju log:
unit-basic-16: 09:17:36 WARNING juju.worker.uniter.operation we should run
a leader-deposed hook here, but we can't yet