From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number Resent-From: Phil Hagelberg Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:44:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 10838@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.132950421114418 (code B ref -1); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:44:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Feb 2012 18:43:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43927 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RySmI-0003kU-A4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:43:31 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49121) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RySmG-0003kE-BW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:43:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RySkJ-0007Wa-GI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:41:28 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:48362) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RySkJ-0007WV-D1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:41:27 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56673) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RySkI-0007aO-0Q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:41:27 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RySkG-0007WD-N5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:41:25 -0500 Received: from caiajhbdcaib.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.81]:39248 helo=homiemail-a19.g.dreamhost.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RySkG-0007W9-Ce for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:41:24 -0500 Received: from homiemail-a19.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a19.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1601604089 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:41:22 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=hagelb.org; h=from:to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=hagelb.org; b=NbFd4thvBPZ0bmmEzYVyzbsH7UwYCKkLK2ZCPmSTSHddu5HGwDlkEyjlhZhfR SU6TpBu+xCkjbSvM8jtXZP1vS9v76XeIdyZ7+BA2jlPWk0dfDvd11KWjdJ+uHXxZ 9RFZU06DXhd464GQ+SA/ppDsrIFhxSG155kaBqXQxgfUXo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=hagelb.org; h=from:to :subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=hagelb.org ; bh=CnDPe60vyL43Q1zGEPCgg1wRVeU=; b=tuPsOOQCFVeLJz093hJ9n+XVJmb tuxX8ZriyTYQQd4g65XiOU8Md3tnZGQEbLsg0R4JCeVIdd8H7l2cFCoIsyDKM5Q2 1NOddrnZ4iG7IJ7jooFJjYlEqLiRfAIgWGOHpTRiotE+4yrTGYWlQcgNpd47Gab1 vVzaSXfievY3qSzU= Received: from enigma (71-23-19-98.war.clearwire-wmx.net [71.23.19.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: send@technomancy.us) by homiemail-a19.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0776460407C for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:41:21 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Hagelberg Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:40:47 +0000 Message-ID: <87wr7l7174.fsf@hagelb.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17 X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) I'm passing on this bug report from the repository where I was maintaining package.el in preparation for merging it into Emacs itself: https://github.com/technomancy/package.el/issues/5 > There is a version of package.el which is available from > tromey.com/elpa, which is clearly the starting point for this > package.el, which claims to be version 0.9 in the head of the file. The > current (and emacs23) versions contain this same version number, despite > having significantly different features. This is misleading and > remarkably confusing. The version numbers in both the emacs24 and > emacs23 versions should be updated to indicate that they contain new > features. I agree that incrementing the version number makes sense as a lot of features have been added since the 0.9 release. From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:49:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Phil Hagelberg Cc: 10838@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 10838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10838.132952250311718 (code B ref 10838); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:49:01 +0000 Received: (at 10838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Feb 2012 23:48:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44121 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RyXXK-00032x-Oj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:48:22 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:30960) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RyXXI-00032k-UF for 10838@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:48:21 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmkFAE3mPk/O+IED/2dsb2JhbABDr0aCYIEIgXUBAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIE7YNjCE3DAkBAgECgz4DDgODXwSITpsVhFo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,441,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="163477688" Received: from 206-248-129-3.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([206.248.129.3]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 17 Feb 2012 18:46:19 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 3DBEC5929A; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:46:19 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <87wr7l7174.fsf@hagelb.org> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:46:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87wr7l7174.fsf@hagelb.org> (Phil Hagelberg's message of "Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:40:47 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > I agree that incrementing the version number makes sense as a lot of > features have been added since the 0.9 release. IIUC the package.el we distribute is not synchronized with the unbundled package.el any more, right? So it doesn't need a version number any more (it's version number is the one of Emacs). Stefan From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number Resent-From: Phil Hagelberg Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:05:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Monnier Cc: 10838@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 10838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10838.132952345313116 (code B ref 10838); Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:05:02 +0000 Received: (at 10838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Feb 2012 00:04:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44133 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RyXme-0003PU-BM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:04:13 -0500 Received: from caiajhbdcbhh.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.177]:43208 helo=homiemail-a75.g.dreamhost.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RyXma-0003PL-Lj for 10838@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:04:10 -0500 Received: from homiemail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705935EC080; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:02:11 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=hagelb.org; h=from:to:cc:subject :references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version: content-type; q=dns; s=hagelb.org; b=tQhzdnkevmRf8tOGSymywTubGfW 3zZTuIt5p5FEmxHr8aU7KIONTzNzV6HRZF5e5x4ElKM9PQv06wKNORIKudzSMKRw Q/lwmo1YaAJsouxmg3LzTdKKFoM80lzLWv4czvgfjv13KGcVx6/cPUzgtqxrZOnI gJ5JwN8QnUNXn0Ko= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=hagelb.org; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version: content-type; s=hagelb.org; bh=I+R7QpUyB/e8WanAZaxgTdGVboM=; b=1 SX+t+xxNJR/r3UhJ8ixXqKjgN/vuiRqIHMDuDDMWjTB6fKU7O8bCppPu+Pos3nA1 6bACWpv0zQXhJK9Rg+GjZnWkjN5VRVRzFu7WksGQGqLP11jutC2pSNGEAUF/hO47 8COjj9xGA1ZTFWGIPcrcf8qq4PvTsKR6/kf8Y2cVnI= Received: from enigma (c-98-237-142-226.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [98.237.142.226]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: send@technomancy.us) by homiemail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E63085EC07E; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:02:10 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Hagelberg References: <87wr7l7174.fsf@hagelb.org> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:01:36 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:46:19 -0500") Message-ID: <87pqddj9gf.fsf@hagelb.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) Stefan Monnier writes: > IIUC the package.el we distribute is not synchronized with the unbundled > package.el any more, right? So it doesn't need a version number any > more (it's version number is the one of Emacs). If we want to backport package.el to work in Emacs 23 then we should probably keep the version number, but if we decide that's not worth it then it could be dropped. I haven't looked into what's keeping it from working on 23; I've just been pointing 23 users at an older version. Would you like me to investigate to see how much it would take to make it work? -Phil From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 22:43:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Phil Hagelberg Cc: 10838@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 10838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10838.13296049748099 (code B ref 10838); Sat, 18 Feb 2012 22:43:02 +0000 Received: (at 10838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Feb 2012 22:42:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44979 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RyszV-00026a-N9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:42:53 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:44248) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RyszQ-00026K-GS for 10838@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:42:52 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai4FAKYoQE9Ld/XJ/2dsb2JhbABDr0uCYIEIgXMBAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIE7VLiTeCcQY3DAwDgz4DDgODXwSITpsZhFuBPg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,443,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="163603995" Received: from 75-119-245-201.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([75.119.245.201]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 18 Feb 2012 17:40:40 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 3088C593CD; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:40:40 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <87wr7l7174.fsf@hagelb.org> <87pqddj9gf.fsf@hagelb.org> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:40:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87pqddj9gf.fsf@hagelb.org> (Phil Hagelberg's message of "Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:01:36 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) >> IIUC the package.el we distribute is not synchronized with the unbundled >> package.el any more, right? So it doesn't need a version number any >> more (it's version number is the one of Emacs). > If we want to backport package.el to work in Emacs 23 then we should > probably keep the version number, I don't think so: if the canonical package.el is the one that comes with Emacs, then it's version number is Emacs's (i.e. there "package.el from Emacs-24.1" and "package.el from Emacs-24.2, ..."). > but if we decide that's not worth it then it could be > dropped. I haven't looked into what's keeping it from working on 23; > I've just been pointing 23 users at an older version. Would you like > me to investigate to see how much it would take to make it work? I haven't thought about this. It'd be good to have a package.el that works with Emacs-23 to access GNU ELPA, but it doesn't have to be sync'd with Emacs-24's. So unless package.el version 0.9 has problems accessing GNU ELPA, I see no need to backport the current code. Stefan From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number References: <87wr7l7174.fsf@hagelb.org> In-Reply-To: <87wr7l7174.fsf@hagelb.org> Resent-From: Chong Yidong Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Tom Tromey Cc: Phil Hagelberg , Stefan Monnier , 10838@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 10838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10838.13301459785070 (code B ref 10838); Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:00:02 +0000 Received: (at 10838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Feb 2012 04:59:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54936 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S19jO-0001Ji-5K for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:59:38 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:53268) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S19jL-0001Ja-Bg for 10838@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:59:36 -0500 Received: from bb116-14-103-36.singnet.com.sg ([116.14.103.36]:55348 helo=furball) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S19gm-0006z5-JZ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:56:57 -0500 From: Chong Yidong Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:56:48 +0800 Message-ID: <877gzb7bov.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) > There is a version of package.el which is available from > tromey.com/elpa, which is clearly the starting point for this > package.el, which claims to be version 0.9 in the head of the file. The > current (and emacs23) versions contain this same version number, despite > having significantly different features. This is misleading and > remarkably confusing. The version numbers in both the emacs24 and > emacs23 versions should be updated to indicate that they contain new > features. IMO, it's desireable for the package.el in Emacs to retain a version number header, just in case there is any package that in turn relies on package.el (even though sounds pretty theoretical). I propose bumping the package.el in Emacs to 1.0. Any objection? From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number Resent-From: Phil Hagelberg Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:27:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Chong Yidong Cc: Tom Tromey , Stefan Monnier , 10838@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 10838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10838.133014758310415 (code B ref 10838); Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:27:02 +0000 Received: (at 10838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Feb 2012 05:26:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54955 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S1A9G-0002hw-Ro for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:26:23 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com ([209.85.210.172]:39023) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S1A9D-0002hh-5Y for 10838@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:26:20 -0500 Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so4071923iag.3 for <10838@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:23:40 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of phil@hagelb.org designates 10.50.222.132 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.50.222.132; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of phil@hagelb.org designates 10.50.222.132 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=phil@hagelb.org Received: from mr.google.com ([10.50.222.132]) by 10.50.222.132 with SMTP id qm4mr969379igc.21.1330147420908 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:23:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.222.132 with SMTP id qm4mr778397igc.21.1330147420835; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:23:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.128.201 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:23:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <877gzb7bov.fsf@gnu.org> References: <877gzb7bov.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:23:40 -0800 Message-ID: From: Phil Hagelberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn0pakGuYIVrub63iOasH7wiKEu/ZoKAwt8ITfXbS1Rsmok+M2cvYkJAoySNDoY6H69ND44 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Chong Yidong wrote: > IMO, it's desireable for the package.el in Emacs to retain a version > number header, just in case there is any package that in turn relies on > package.el (even though sounds pretty theoretical). =C2=A0I propose bumpi= ng > the package.el in Emacs to 1.0. =C2=A0Any objection? 1.0 makes sense considering it will be the first version distributed with E= macs. -Phil From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number Resent-From: Phil Hagelberg Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:27:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Monnier Cc: 10838@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 10838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10838.133014758510424 (code B ref 10838); Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:27:02 +0000 Received: (at 10838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Feb 2012 05:26:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54957 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S1A9J-0002i5-2R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:26:25 -0500 Received: from caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.119]:55372 helo=homiemail-a12.g.dreamhost.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S1A9E-0002hf-0D for 10838@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:26:21 -0500 Received: from homiemail-a12.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a12.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5680671406F; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:23:40 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=hagelb.org; h=from:to:cc:subject :references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version: content-type; q=dns; s=hagelb.org; b=Yy7MZCAL4igVt+S04prTXQP4Ufy Mphqr2Wn94rDc3GZA5fMJSaTPedOSW6VKfwLPn/dEwVTFn7gEz9rry3WlMmnlWJ8 v1gBLr9OXFGVy6UmVQh0GVhtHitjf2WRnl1UifgIsvWSck64682x1emKMTx5mGGn VMSUA+gObpoxInDA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=hagelb.org; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version: content-type; s=hagelb.org; bh=mI31jc0X6k4Dr8akatirnV//6ZM=; b=I glColD6yr3g/YlB1/2QGhOgxC0AiZJMwZC9sinZ7VgwkIItbNCNl5hgoTPGTC5rA VVQ3YkSeB0OOPbxHDpa/1AKjDfSjCnXBFa+9obJj6MGNclPFlMHyf/mj6Fn0uhGI s2PmzhAwp8LleWdTSlaG5QZ/ImKal7lBHjs6l2tLmU= Received: from enigma (71-23-19-98.war.clearwire-wmx.net [71.23.19.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: send@technomancy.us) by homiemail-a12.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D7DD71406B; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:23:38 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Hagelberg References: <87wr7l7174.fsf@hagelb.org> <87pqddj9gf.fsf@hagelb.org> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:23:09 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:40:40 -0500") Message-ID: <87d393sczm.fsf@hagelb.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) Stefan Monnier writes: >> but if we decide that's not worth it then it could be >> dropped. I haven't looked into what's keeping it from working on 23; >> I've just been pointing 23 users at an older version. Would you like >> me to investigate to see how much it would take to make it work? > > I haven't thought about this. It'd be good to have a package.el that > works with Emacs-23 to access GNU ELPA, but it doesn't have to be sync'd > with Emacs-24's. So unless package.el version 0.9 has problems > accessing GNU ELPA, I see no need to backport the current code. The problem is there are many versions claiming to be 0.9. The original one on tromey.com (which did not support multiple sources) probably has the best claim of being "the real 0.9". I think Chong's suggestion of releasing 24 with package.el 1.0 makes sense, and if we decide to backport a few changes for official 23-compatibility it could be 0.9.1 or something. -Phil From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 09:50:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Phil Hagelberg Cc: 10838@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 10838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10838.13301633723485 (code B ref 10838); Sat, 25 Feb 2012 09:50:02 +0000 Received: (at 10838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Feb 2012 09:49:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55119 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S1EFw-0000uA-BY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:49:32 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:1085) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S1EFt-0000u0-9U for 10838@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:49:30 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AicFAKU/KE9MCodT/2dsb2JhbACBX5x7eYhwnhmGGQSGUJRJhAs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,1,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="164543828" Received: from 76-10-135-83.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.135.83]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 25 Feb 2012 04:46:49 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id E3BA559673; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:46:48 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <87wr7l7174.fsf@hagelb.org> <87pqddj9gf.fsf@hagelb.org> <87d393sczm.fsf@hagelb.org> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:46:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87d393sczm.fsf@hagelb.org> (Phil Hagelberg's message of "Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:23:09 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > The problem is there are many versions claiming to be 0.9. The original > one on tromey.com (which did not support multiple sources) probably has > the best claim of being "the real 0.9". I think Chong's suggestion of > releasing 24 with package.el 1.0 makes sense, and if we decide to > backport a few changes for official 23-compatibility it could be 0.9.1 > or something. >From what I understand, our package.el is the authoritative package.el, so it can just use Emacs's own version number: no need to name it "version 1.0". As for the one that works with Emacs-23: it's just a stop-gap, so it really doesn't matter what it's called and whether or not it's based on our code: as long as it exists and works well enough, we're set. Stefan From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number Resent-From: Phil Hagelberg Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Stefan Monnier Cc: 10838@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 10838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10838.133020869012197 (code B ref 10838); Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:25:02 +0000 Received: (at 10838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Feb 2012 22:24:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56483 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S1Q2r-0003Af-Bq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:24:49 -0500 Received: from caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.119]:40904 helo=homiemail-a21.g.dreamhost.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S1Q2o-0003AX-47 for 10838@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:24:48 -0500 Received: from homiemail-a21.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a21.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6338300072; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:22:03 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=hagelb.org; h=from:to:cc:subject :references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version: content-type; q=dns; s=hagelb.org; b=GNJHDhAHLGP04v8uQI5bfr6fjMu vVAFu306WMJvN2i79YrlCGvjKAG8l89dnePYuLx9PNU40Wrn0Vtwf07ChkupUrDB Ngv+RXsCW0vJDXY19DyqWiTscWRc32l71e3mKCUNNqQ71+szDf80q50gTX2Yj8LY tkUGeaJUWaRV7gEI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=hagelb.org; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version: content-type; s=hagelb.org; bh=1XKQtctZ3fu+rzHYgrQlnIbeYpg=; b=M XhpS4E7zJbO3ywus9JucSE0qB95xJQ/rClTWlj0HnmW0TOVWaTXZDIyNZ8uP90PR QRGTqzh2Fkcnpabw+Kwo9KROPufQTEFgOAh9eJuU1xxY9pctdVJUbtfIgiEja9gj W4XpS9TTA84k/1wnT5BLciFlkROBhOJH+gcTm/908U= Received: from enigma (71-23-19-98.war.clearwire-wmx.net [71.23.19.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: send@technomancy.us) by homiemail-a21.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1D1130006C; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:22:02 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Hagelberg References: <87wr7l7174.fsf@hagelb.org> <87pqddj9gf.fsf@hagelb.org> <87d393sczm.fsf@hagelb.org> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:21:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:46:48 -0500") Message-ID: <878vjqsges.fsf@hagelb.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) Stefan Monnier writes: > From what I understand, our package.el is the authoritative package.el, > so it can just use Emacs's own version number: no need to name it > "version 1.0". Chong had a good point that you could have another package that depends on a particular feature in package.el; in that case having a version number to pin it on so you get a clearer error might be advantageous. -Phil From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number Resent-From: Tom Tromey Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:51:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Chong Yidong Cc: Phil Hagelberg , Stefan Monnier , 10838@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 10838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10838.133062065221003 (code B ref 10838); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:51:02 +0000 Received: (at 10838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Mar 2012 16:50:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57722 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S39DP-0005SX-4e for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:50:51 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38571) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S39D2-0005Rz-VX for 10838@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:50:40 -0500 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q21Go144016180 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:50:01 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q21GnxcJ005271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:50:00 -0500 From: Tom Tromey References: <877gzb7bov.fsf@gnu.org> X-Attribution: Tom Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:49:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: <877gzb7bov.fsf@gnu.org> (Chong Yidong's message of "Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:56:48 +0800") Message-ID: <87ehtcjmfc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) >>>>> "Chong" == Chong Yidong writes: >> There is a version of package.el which is available from >> tromey.com/elpa, which is clearly the starting point for this >> package.el, which claims to be version 0.9 in the head of the file. The >> current (and emacs23) versions contain this same version number, despite >> having significantly different features. This is misleading and >> remarkably confusing. The version numbers in both the emacs24 and >> emacs23 versions should be updated to indicate that they contain new >> features. Chong> IMO, it's desireable for the package.el in Emacs to retain a version Chong> number header, just in case there is any package that in turn relies on Chong> package.el (even though sounds pretty theoretical). I propose bumping Chong> the package.el in Emacs to 1.0. Any objection? It is fine by me. FWIW, package.el has a version number so it can be updated using itself. Tom From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:15:23 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#10838: 24.0.92; package.el shows a misleading version number Resent-From: Chong Yidong Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:47:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Tom Tromey Cc: Phil Hagelberg , Stefan Monnier , 10838@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 10838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10838.13308544002615 (code B ref 10838); Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:47:02 +0000 Received: (at 10838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Mar 2012 09:46:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60608 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S481X-0000fn-Iz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:46:40 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:41084) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S481C-0000fF-6l for 10838@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:46:28 -0500 Received: from bb116-14-103-36.singnet.com.sg ([116.14.103.36]:53740 helo=furball) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S480T-0004eC-MD; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:45:34 -0500 From: Chong Yidong References: <877gzb7bov.fsf@gnu.org> <87ehtcjmfc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:45:25 +0800 In-Reply-To: <87ehtcjmfc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:49:59 -0700") Message-ID: <87linghf7u.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) Tom Tromey writes: > Chong> IMO, it's desireable for the package.el in Emacs to retain a version > Chong> number header, just in case there is any package that in turn relies on > Chong> package.el (even though sounds pretty theoretical). I propose bumping > Chong> the package.el in Emacs to 1.0. Any objection? > > It is fine by me. Done. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 04 04:46:50 2012 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Mar 2012 09:46:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60610 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S481i-0000g9-9L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:46:50 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:41085) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S481K-0000fP-U6 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:46:36 -0500 Received: from bb116-14-103-36.singnet.com.sg ([116.14.103.36]:53742 helo=furball) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S480e-0004eQ-Vr for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:45:45 -0500 From: Chong Yidong To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: close 10838 Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:45:38 +0800 Message-ID: <878vjgpum5.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) close 10838 thanks