From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:24:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.141795862122382 (code B ref -1); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:24:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 13:23:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56062 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxboL-0005ow-41 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:23:41 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44631) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxboJ-0005om-63 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:23:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxboA-00029T-0Z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:23:39 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:53825) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxbo9-00029P-Tp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:23:29 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46329) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxbo3-0002zB-Ms for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:23:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxbnx-00024I-Eg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:23:23 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:58548) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxbnx-00024A-5K for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:23:17 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A14A7200D1E; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:22:44 +0100 (CET) From: Jorgen Schaefer Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:31:50 +0100 Message-Id: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) When installing packages by name, only packages from archives with the highest priority are considered, before versions are compared. This solves the "MELPA problem", where MELPA assigns date-based version numbers to packages which override all other archives. Giving MELPA a lower priority means packages are installed from MELPA only when the package is not available from other archives. This can be overridden manually by the user. --- lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- test/automated/package-test.el | 17 +++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index 4e5c397..2030482 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -228,6 +228,33 @@ a package can run arbitrary code." :group 'package :version "24.1") +(defcustom package-archive-default-priority 500 + "The default priority for archives. + +This is used if the archive is not found in +`package-archive-priorities'." + :type 'integer + :risky t + :group 'package + :version "25.1") + +(defcustom package-archive-priorities nil + "An alist of priorities for packages. + +Each element has the form (ARCHIVE-ID . PRIORITY). + +When installing packages, the package with the highest version +number from the archive with the highest priority is +selected. When higher versions are available from archives with +lower priorities, the user has to select those manually. + +Archives not in this list have the priority given in +`package-archive-default-priority'." + :type 'integer + :risky t + :group 'package + :version "25.1") + (defcustom package-pinned-packages nil "An alist of packages that are pinned to specific archives. This can be useful if you have multiple package archives enabled, @@ -1063,6 +1090,7 @@ Also, add the originating archive to the `package-desc' structure." ;; Older archive-contents files have only 4 ;; elements here. (package--ac-desc-extras (cdr package))))) + (archive-priority (package-archive-priority archive)) (existing-packages (assq name package-archive-contents)) (pinned-to-archive (assoc name package-pinned-packages))) (cond @@ -1075,8 +1103,12 @@ Also, add the originating archive to the `package-desc' structure." (t (while (if (and (cdr existing-packages) - (version-list-< - version (package-desc-version (cadr existing-packages)))) + (or (< archive-priority + (package-archive-priority + (package-desc-archive (cadr existing-packages)))) + (version-list-< + version + (package-desc-version (cadr existing-packages))))) (setq existing-packages (cdr existing-packages)) (push pkg-desc (cdr existing-packages)) nil)))))) @@ -1268,6 +1300,15 @@ The file can either be a tar file or an Emacs Lisp file." "Return the archive containing the package NAME." (cdr (assoc (package-desc-archive desc) package-archives))) +(defun package-archive-priority (archive) + "Return the priority of ARCHIVE. + +The archive priorities are specified in +`package-archive-priorities' and +`package-archive-default-priority'." + (or (cdr (assoc archive package-archive-priorities)) + package-archive-default-priority)) + (defun package--download-one-archive (archive file) "Retrieve an archive file FILE from ARCHIVE, and cache it. ARCHIVE should be a cons cell of the form (NAME . LOCATION), diff --git a/test/automated/package-test.el b/test/automated/package-test.el index 6e7994a..2a337fb 100644 --- a/test/automated/package-test.el +++ b/test/automated/package-test.el @@ -230,6 +230,23 @@ Must called from within a `tar-mode' buffer." (package-refresh-contents) (package-install 'simple-single))) +(ert-deftest package-test-install-prioritized () + "Install a lower version from a higher-prioritized archive." + (with-package-test () + (let* ((newer-version (expand-file-name "data/package/newer-versions" + package-test-file-dir)) + (package-archives `(("older" . ,package-test-data-dir) + ("newer" . ,newer-version))) + (package-archive-priorities '(("newer" . 100)))) + + (package-initialize) + (package-refresh-contents) + (package-install 'simple-single) + + (let ((installed (cdr (assq 'simple-single package-alist)))) + (should (version-list-= '(1 3) + (package-desc-version installed))))))) + (ert-deftest package-test-install-multifile () "Check properties of the installed multi-file package." (with-package-test (:basedir "data/package" :install '(multi-file)) -- 1.7.10.4 From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 14:20:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer , 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141796197427490 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 14:20:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 14:19:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56080 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxcgP-00079K-F5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:19:33 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:21785) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxcgO-00079B-3A for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:19:32 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id sB7EJTKY032676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:19:30 GMT Received: from userz7022.oracle.com (userz7022.oracle.com [156.151.31.86]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB7EJSPs025059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:19:29 GMT Received: from abhmp0003.oracle.com (abhmp0003.oracle.com [141.146.116.9]) by userz7022.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB7EJRM7003270; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:19:28 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 06:19:29 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams References: <<20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de>> In-Reply-To: <<20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) Here we seem to have a bug report that "fixes" a problem that is not even clearly described. Instead of a proper problem description, we get, directly, a "solution". Please prove the problem first. A one-liner stating that MELPA assigns date version numbers and you need to "fix" that is not a problem description. > This solves the "MELPA problem", where MELPA assigns date-based > version numbers to packages which override all other archives. > Giving MELPA a lower priority means packages are installed from > MELPA only when the package is not available from other archives. Why is that good? Why should MELPA be given a lower priority? > This can be overridden manually by the user. How? Why make users jump through extra hoops to retrieve packages from MELPA in priority? This sounds like a bad hack. MELPA is, so far, the most complete repository, with the most packages, refreshed dynamically and presenting the most recent versions of packages. Many users put MELPA first in their list of repositories to retrieve from. It doesn't sound like their use case is being considered seriously. Caveat: I'm going only by your description above; I have not looked into the code. It just smells bad, from that description. From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 14:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Drew Adams , 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141796340729674 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 14:44:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 14:43:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56090 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxd3W-0007iX-Hk for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:43:26 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:44149) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxd3T-0007iG-IQ for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:43:24 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 998) id 1F2F9200D1F; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:43:19 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on loki.jorgenschaefer.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from forcix (port-21631.pppoe.wtnet.de [46.59.146.42]) by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14823200D1D; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:43:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:43:16 +0100 From: Jorgen Schaefer Message-ID: <20141207154316.1f2c5943@forcix> In-Reply-To: References: <<20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; i586-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 06:19:29 -0800 (PST) Drew Adams wrote: > Why is that good? Why should MELPA be given a lower priority? MELPA provides unstable versions of packages. To provide stable versions of packages, there is the "MELPA Stable" repository (among others, including GNU ELPA). As not all packages in MELPA unstable are available in MELPA stable, users have to add both to their archives list to get access to all packages. But due to the way MELPA assigns version numbers, the unstable versions will always override stable versions, even when both are available. This patch will allow a setup that takes the newest version of a package from GNU ELPA, MELPA stable or Marmalade, and only if there is no version available from any of these repositories, take the one available from MELPA unstable. No jumping through hoops required. The current solution to this is to add all packages available from non-MELPA unstable to `package-pinned-packages'. The facility of priorities for repositories is widely available in other package managers, e.g. in Debian's apt (see apt_preferences(5)). You can read more about the problems with MELPA's versioning system here: http://blog.jorgenschaefer.de/2014/06/the-sorry-state-of-emacs-lisp-package.html I hope I could answer your questions. Regards, Jorgen From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 15:56:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer , 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14179677294105 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 15:56:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 15:55:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56397 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxeBE-000147-5k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 10:55:29 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:47203) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxeBA-00013w-Gi for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 10:55:25 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id sB7FtL5M023400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:55:22 GMT Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sB7FtIt6009845 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:55:19 GMT Received: from abhmp0003.oracle.com (abhmp0003.oracle.com [141.146.116.9]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB7FtIMw013545; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:55:18 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 07:55:20 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams References: <<20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207154316.1f2c5943@forcix> In-Reply-To: <20141207154316.1f2c5943@forcix> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > Why is that good? Why should MELPA be given a lower priority? >=20 > MELPA provides unstable versions of packages. Baloney. Please stop pushing this myth. MELPA provides *packages*. Whether a package is "stable" or not, as far as one can tell from the outside, is only something (optionally) claimed by its developer. > To provide stable versions of packages, there is the "MELPA Stable" No. There is nothing more stable about the packages in "MELPA Stable" (according to the creator of MELPA and MELPA "Stable"). Again, this "stability" is merely a designation by the package maintainer, for *his* own convenience. If a package maintainer wants to distinguish two versions of a package, and call one of them "stable", s?he can choose to put the latter into "MELPA Stable". That's the stated purpose of "MELPA Stable". It was added because some package maintainers wanted two, distinguishable versions that users could choose from. That's all - the name means nothing more than that. It might well be that the version put into MELPA Stable is less stable than the one put into MELPA. > repository (among others, including GNU ELPA). As not all > packages in MELPA unstable There is no "MELPA unstable". That is a fiction. Even the creator of MELPA and "MELPA Stable" has said so, and that adding MELPA Stable was maybe not a great idea (my paraphrase). According to him, "MELPA Stable" is in maintenance mode. > are available in MELPA stable, users have to add both to their > archives list to get access to all packages. But due to the way > MELPA assigns version numbers, the unstable versions will always > override stable versions, even when both are available. Take it up with the MELPA maintainers if you have a complaint about the design of MELPA and its version numbers. Don't try to lock out MELPA for all Emacs users, just because you have a problem with MELPA. Don't make the many MELPA users jump through hoops to let package.el treat MELPA like any other repository. =20 > This patch will allow a setup that takes the newest version of a > package from GNU ELPA, MELPA stable or Marmalade, and only if ^^^^^^^ > there is no version available from any of these repositories, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > take the one available from MELPA unstable. IOW, you want to favor all other repositories over MELPA. That logic is flawed. This certainly should not be the hard-coded/default Emacs behavior. "Only if there is no version available from any of these repositories, take the one available from MELPA unstable." Sheesh. Why should MELPA (there is no "MELPA unstable") be usable ONLY if no version of the package is available from any other repositories? > No jumping through hoops required. It's a joke, right? You can get off the bus at your bus stop only if there are no other people on the bus. Prerequisite: get everyone else off the bus first. IOW, you are last. Oh - UNLESS you bring a note from your mother saying "Please allow my boy Jorgen to get off the bus without waiting until he is the only passenger left." > The current solution to this is to add all packages available > from non-MELPA unstable to `package-pinned-packages'. "Please allow my boy Jorgen..." Quite a "solution". Be fair. If you want to require notes from mothers, then do that for *every* package repository. Make it so that to get a package from *any* repository you need to pin the package to that repository. Then you will see what this amounts to. Then you will have something that is fair. And equally cumbersome for all. There is no reason to discriminate against MELPA, treating it differently. > The facility of priorities for repositories is widely available > in other package managers, e.g. in Debian's apt (see > apt_preferences(5)). I couldn't care less. Do they single out one repository like you have singled out MELPA, hard-coding things so that to use that repository a given package must *not be available anywhere else*? "only if there is no version available from any" other repository, "take the one available from" THE-BAD-BOY. Repository priorities can be expressed in a normal way, using a list or assigning priority values - with *no built-in prejudice* for or against any particular repository. There is no reason to blackball MELPA this way. Treat repositories the same a priori. Let only *users* prioritize them. > You can read more about the problems with MELPA's versioning system > here: http://blog.jorgenschaefer.de/2014/06/ > the-sorry-state-of-emacs-lisp-package.html You quote yourself... Wunderbar. You have a problem with MELPA. You should take up your problem with the MELPA designers & maintainers. Please do not impose this stuff on Emacs, trying to blackball MELPA. A sorry state, indeed. MELPA is the most widely used and the most useful repository we have, by far. If you don't want to use it then don't use it. Circulez ; il n'y a rien a voir. From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Ted Zlatanov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:07:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14179684035203 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:07:01 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 16:06:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56401 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxeM7-0001Lq-0R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:06:43 -0500 Received: from mail-qg0-f45.google.com ([209.85.192.45]:50742) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxeM4-0001Lg-Hj for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:06:41 -0500 Received: by mail-qg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id f51so2561828qge.18 for <19296@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:06:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lifelogs.com; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:mail-copies-to :gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=em3tS/XCqo1oB1avZCYwO0j+VREm3uDJ2tVPXqSKarA=; b=FkUPQEt+aBcW3A3e0EYSKdBTOqSG/sCZ5tjKw60/nos5iUS9dqgsL4E4U4b1dcWeNu ebyuY85hzZjpic4EcZmvTA7zu6MtRSXHzXbkRFcLxYdCW9Kg+2AGGnTIpJiwIDhqo4fJ H6CaU2H+ESHELIlEwsmVuPC3SF8nW7Nz/w4pE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:organization:references :mail-copies-to:gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=em3tS/XCqo1oB1avZCYwO0j+VREm3uDJ2tVPXqSKarA=; b=AdububShy09M8drcIr8J0FKcYyDXUoqZ3haETWsyDnUOK0I0qlosj8zO4H5eXmfK8J okSJo60SiwcLzrsvt9nRSo7AyW1VtIr0Rq49/s0YbT4w52juNFtYi+UxlHGMMu4cgskR BXLZPTJt6mscqI8JmvB5zd3lpK8/a0PYlYsqCw9BuGrYVgQ21+HryUGimEjmZT+nzmmy LPeiArvRMtrKMFTdkS9rkZIcGHOKXa5ThpPd0pF8XPW2TH+2OgNLlosXhiR9AmGlXj2x 0Z1mcCZtyB/g0SFVOU++8jouAbAfHvFN3ASVIZRoXcnyjB21mNIqKunRbR6iAkVoLb6j IJCg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm8tfVZRZ49yztFiykFTpw5UsDc2McO25ZlLHJYlZNtTjFxQFw5G46YuDKM2+Y4tASL/Ar0 X-Received: by 10.229.190.71 with SMTP id dh7mr44330363qcb.5.1417968399774; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from flea (c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [98.229.61.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm35432115qge.16.2014.12.07.08.06.39 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:06:39 -0800 (PST) From: Ted Zlatanov Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=A2=D0=B5=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=BE=D1=80_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=97=D0=BB=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B2?= @ Cienfuegos References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never Gmane-Reply-To-List: yes Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:07:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> (Jorgen Schaefer's message of "Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:31:50 +0100") Message-ID: <87iohnmoji.fsf@lifelogs.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:31:50 +0100 Jorgen Schaefer wrote: JS> When installing packages by name, only packages from archives with JS> the highest priority are considered, before versions are compared. JS> This solves the "MELPA problem", where MELPA assigns date-based JS> version numbers to packages which override all other archives. JS> Giving MELPA a lower priority means packages are installed from JS> MELPA only when the package is not available from other archives. I like it. Ted From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:11:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Drew Adams Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14179686085547 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:11:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 16:10:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56409 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxePP-0001RO-7d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:10:07 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:45184) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxePN-0001RF-9G for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:10:06 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 998) id 4145D200D20; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 17:10:04 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on loki.jorgenschaefer.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from forcix (port-21631.pppoe.wtnet.de [46.59.146.42]) by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 534EF200D1D; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 17:10:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 17:10:02 +0100 From: Jorgen Schaefer Message-ID: <20141207171002.31c51d19@forcix> In-Reply-To: References: <<20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207154316.1f2c5943@forcix> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; i586-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 07:55:20 -0800 (PST) Drew Adams wrote: > > > Why is that good? Why should MELPA be given a lower priority? > > > > MELPA provides unstable versions of packages. > > Baloney. Please stop pushing this myth. > > MELPA provides *packages*. Whether a package is "stable" or > not, as far as one can tell from the outside, is only something > (optionally) claimed by its developer. MELPA actively discourages package authors to have a "stable" branch in the recipe: https://github.com/milkypostman/melpa/pull/1129#issuecomment-27156539 MELPA strongly prefers "snapshot" releases, and suggests that users use the "MELPA stable" package archive if they do want officially released versions. When I raised this issue in the past, I was told that the "E" in "MELPA" originally stood for "Experimental": https://github.com/milkypostman/melpa/pull/1129#issuecomment-27156209 > Repository priorities can be expressed in a normal way, > using a list or assigning priority values - with *no built-in > prejudice* This patch does not add any built-in prejudice. As the patch description says, this *allows* the user to set it up like that. It does not force anyone to do anything, and does not change default behavior at all. Could I ask you to be a bit more courteous and civil to possible contributors in the future? Thank you. If you require further responses, please do specify in what official capacity you are speaking. I seem unable to find you on the list of maintainers for Emacs. Regards, Jorgen From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Ted Zlatanov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:13:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Drew Adams Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org, Jorgen Schaefer Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14179687615808 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:13:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 16:12:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56416 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxeRs-0001Vb-NU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:12:41 -0500 Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175]:57525) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxeRr-0001VS-DP for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:12:39 -0500 Received: by mail-qc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id b13so2824572qcw.20 for <19296@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:12:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lifelogs.com; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:mail-copies-to :gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=a/qL0L2VPGhFt8Wl5cslNLlkGSlLRs5pr0GsrNjsLWU=; b=AQDPwD/rLukZU5ldStdEXR2uN+SjIzJc3xKY5Z2pbsIo9sZ58X6rWB/WvD3yw86HEa H/IrYErGGUCdx60LAP+boT6JaClO40mMLxHYiuJVWAneWiyoOWpFuorAvlqSIxNL708+ U/m1Yfu8Jv5gHl1HZV4rtmljW0ubvLyqTjHG4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:organization:references :mail-copies-to:gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=a/qL0L2VPGhFt8Wl5cslNLlkGSlLRs5pr0GsrNjsLWU=; b=NQAtqOykUDwlDrbOOvDAlVDJHBfRBx4gVRZFfzj66lvW+yXGPRmpTrKTmF1+vOXy42 G6kTLi40qSl7MjtDabA86gEE5qtgPegVnhYKaNLE3kuG9t2tpGha3f8uljXf+iS9Yc6n xzLDsIeHSLMRX8Lz5AkqAk12slRD8npQdB7Ns3dvnEIFaOaQBgK9ghuPKVPfoXiHEQlE jJo1w2/PB+7sSkwCwGpPiM9lETXytA087oDvI1gVM2Wb0kM4DnNBK22o14oJAjSxPMYK mLrDJ9xNBzoq0gDTw90Vn+DVpCe8b2CWR15JXfkZ/0LKA405cFisyYncCwE6S9ZOufYp yWFw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkq21ip/rfBNiwTzs/pmbWB4ypzDmjo9U9CqkdJRMa+H5Vs4dWbze2NPygKN3NM7nJAkfEU X-Received: by 10.224.137.198 with SMTP id x6mr44245891qat.11.1417968759047; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:12:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from flea (c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [98.229.61.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c75sm35440894qge.20.2014.12.07.08.12.38 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 08:12:38 -0800 (PST) From: Ted Zlatanov Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=A2=D0=B5=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=BE=D1=80_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=97=D0=BB=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B2?= @ Cienfuegos References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207154316.1f2c5943@forcix> X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never Gmane-Reply-To-List: yes Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:13:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sun, 7 Dec 2014 07:55:20 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: <87egsbmo9j.fsf@lifelogs.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 07:55:20 -0800 (PST) Drew Adams wrote: DA> Take it up with the MELPA maintainers if you have a complaint DA> about the design of MELPA and its version numbers. DA> Don't try to lock out MELPA for all Emacs users, just because DA> you have a problem with MELPA. Don't make the many MELPA users DA> jump through hoops to let package.el treat MELPA like any other DA> repository. What are you talking about?!!??! Have you even looked at the code?! MELPA is only mentioned in the commentary, there's nothing in the code that uses it or refers to it. The amount of effort and time you spent on that reply... wow. DA> That logic is flawed. This certainly should not be the DA> hard-coded/default Emacs behavior. "Only if there is no version DA> available from any of these repositories, take the one available DA> from MELPA unstable." Sheesh. It's not the default, it's a user option. DA> Circulez ; il n'y a rien a voir. French for "I just want to argue." Ted From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 17:42:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Drew Adams Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org, Jorgen Schaefer Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141797411719543 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 17:42:01 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 17:41:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56464 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxfqG-000559-Sp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:41:57 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:42197) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxfqD-000550-Q2 for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:41:54 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjsPAOwQflRMCqTq/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQMBViMFCws0EhQYDSSISgnWWQEBAQEGAQEBAQEdkG8HhEgFiwGMVQWXVIF4hBkhgncBAQE X-IPAS-Result: AjsPAOwQflRMCqTq/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQMBViMFCws0EhQYDSSISgnWWQEBAQEGAQEBAQEdkG8HhEgFiwGMVQWXVIF4hBkhgncBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,502,1413259200"; d="scan'208";a="99797713" Received: from 76-10-164-234.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.164.234]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Dec 2014 12:41:53 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id BAF0E9894; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:41:52 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de>> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:41:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sun, 7 Dec 2014 06:19:29 -0800 (PST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > Here we seem to have a bug report that "fixes" a problem that > is not even clearly described. It's a well known problem among the people who worked on package.el (AFAIK). Stefan From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 17:57:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141797501620931 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 17:57:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 17:56:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56472 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxg4m-0005RU-CN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:56:56 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:45013) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxg4k-0005RN-Fw for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:56:54 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj8PAOwQflRMCqTq/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVawjuCYgQCAoEkFwEBAQEBAXyEAwEBAwFWIwULCw4mEhQYDSSISgnWWQEBAQEGAgEfimCFTUIHhEgFiwGMVQWXVIF4hBkhgTaBQQEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: Aj8PAOwQflRMCqTq/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVawjuCYgQCAoEkFwEBAQEBAXyEAwEBAwFWIwULCw4mEhQYDSSISgnWWQEBAQEGAgEfimCFTUIHhEgFiwGMVQWXVIF4hBkhgTaBQQEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,502,1413259200"; d="scan'208";a="99798823" Received: from 76-10-164-234.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.164.234]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Dec 2014 12:56:53 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 737E29894; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:56:53 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:56:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> (Jorgen Schaefer's message of "Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:31:50 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > When installing packages by name, only packages from archives with > the highest priority are considered, before versions are compared. What can this be used for (other than the MELPA case, obviously)? > This solves the "MELPA problem", where MELPA assigns date-based > version numbers to packages which override all other archives. > Giving MELPA a lower priority means packages are installed from > MELPA only when the package is not available from other archives. I think the better way to solve the problem of versioning the "bleeding edge package" would be to take the base version and tuck the date to it (instead of only using the date). I.e. file names like foo-mode-1.3.0.20141023.tar.gz where "1.3" is the version of the last release. Of course that requires a change on MELPA side and I have no idea how easy/feasible that would be. And I'm not completely sure it would really be the best option either. But maybe an idea along the same lines would be to treat revision numbers of the form YYYYMMDD (or similar) as being a "bleeding edge" release and to translate them to, "0.0.YYYYMMDD". This would have a similar effect to setting MELPA's priority lower. > This can be overridden manually by the user. An important issue is what happens after the user did such an override. In my above suggestion, the behavior would kind of suck since package-list would then constantly recommend "upgrading" to the official release (since 1.3 is "more uptodate" than "0.0.YYYYMMDD"). Stefan From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:17:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141797619322849 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:17:01 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 18:16:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56485 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxgNk-0005wS-T4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:16:33 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:32779) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxgNi-0005wG-08 for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:16:31 -0500 Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id sB7IGSYN020244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 18:16:29 GMT Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB7IGRVQ014820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 18:16:28 GMT Received: from abhmp0015.oracle.com (abhmp0015.oracle.com [141.146.116.21]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB7IGReH027396; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 18:16:27 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <77c7e7b5-c30b-4b9a-9737-4e9eb587499e@default> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 10:16:29 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams References: <<20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207154316.1f2c5943@forcix> <20141207171002.31c51d19@forcix> In-Reply-To: <20141207171002.31c51d19@forcix> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > MELPA provides *packages*. Whether a package is "stable" or > > not, as far as one can tell from the outside, is only something > > (optionally) claimed by its developer. >=20 > MELPA actively discourages package authors to have a "stable" > branch in the recipe: > https://github.com/milkypostman/melpa/pull/1129#issuecomment- > 27156539 That URL points to Donald Curtis saying just what I've been saying here, AFAICT. MELPA packages are packages, nothing more. And saying this: "part of the reason MELPA is so popular is because it's automatic-doesn't rely on the developer to make releases- and it provides the newest features". There is nothing there about MELPA encouraging unstable packages or discouraging stable packages. You don't like MELPA. That much is clear. That does not an Emacs bug make. You say (at that URL): "MELPA is becoming the standard package archive outside of GNU, and a lot of places recommend using MELPA." That seems to be what bothers you, AFAICT. Get over it. Just don't use it, if you can't get along with it. > MELPA strongly prefers "snapshot" releases,=20 It allows any kind of "release" you want. And yes, in particular, it *allows* automatic updating. This is a *feature*. Don't use it if you don't want it. A package maintainer who uses it wants it. Nothing requires a maintainer to modify the package source that is pulled from, so that an automatic "update" to the repository mirror of it actually changes something. A "stable", "release", "official" package can sit in its source location unchanged for as long as it wants. When it is mirrored to MELPA it will remain just as "stable", "release", and "official". > and suggests that users use the "MELPA stable" package archive > if they do want officially released versions. There is nothing in the URL you cite about "officially released versions". How a package maintainer wants to characterize a given occurrence of a package in a repository is that maintainer's business. MELPA does not recognize any "officially released versions", and it should not. Nor should package.el. Who or what is "official" here? Releases, "official" or not; snapshots; and whatever else you like are labels that *package maintainers* can give to their packages. If used, they are meaningful only to the package itself; they are not recognized by the package manager. They are orthogonal to any handling by ELPA repositories and package.el (or at least they should be). They have, and should have, nothing to do with a package repository. package.el should not get involved with any particular labeling of a package by a package maintainer wrt its use category, whether that be "beta", "snapshot", "foobar", "official", or anything else. Such labels do not exist for the package manager. Now let's see how you talk about it (same URL): "If MELPA wants to enable users to use the bleeding edge at the danger of them having unstable code, then MELPA needs to advertise this more." "bleeding edge", "danger", "unstable"... Sounds scary! "As is, MELPA is advertised as the one big useful lisp archive with no shortcomings, and that is how many users copy and paste the MELPA address to their configuration files." And: "[users] are easily tricked into using MELPA" because ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ it "is establishing itself as the de facto standard repository for Emacs Lisp packages." Uh, MELPA isn't really advertised, and certainly not like that. It sounds like you have a problem with the fact that many users *do* think of MELPA as "the one big useful lisp archive" and they *do* "copy and paste the MELPA address to their configuration files." Are they wrong to do so? Do you want to tell them what they should think and do? Is that what this Emacs "bug" is all about? MELPA is dangerous! bleeding edge! unstable and scary stuff - stay away from it! What do you care what many or most users do with MELPA or what they think of it? If you don't want to use MELPA then don't use it. "Problem" solved. > When I raised this issue in the past, I was told that the > "E" in "MELPA" originally stood for "Experimental": Who cares? > https://github.com/milkypostman/melpa/pull/1129#issuecomment- > 27156209 Clearly you have gripes with MELPA. My advice is for you to simply not use it. Leave it for the many other Emacs users who appreciate it. It is trivial for you not to use it. We'll all be happier. Not a bug. > > Repository priorities can be expressed in a normal way, > > using a list or assigning priority values - with *no > > built-in prejudice* >=20 > This patch does not add any built-in prejudice. As the patch > description says, this *allows* the user to set it up like that. > It does not force anyone to do anything, and does not change > default behavior at all. Given your attitude toward MELPA, I'm not convinced. But I suppose we shall see. > Could I ask you to be a bit more courteous and civil to > possible contributors in the future? Thank you. Don't be so presumptuous. You showed the same attitude in the URL you cited: "So you are saying that you simply refuse to provide the version of my package, which I politely asked you to provide?" To which the reply was: "That's not what I'm saying. I hoped that we could have a=20 conversation in order to understand the trade-offs and jointly look for a solution which suits everyone. If that's not the case, then your polite request is technically a demand." You are so polite, and everyone else is so uncooperative. Funny about that. > If you require further responses, please do specify in > what official capacity you are speaking. I seem unable to > find you on the list of maintainers for Emacs. It appears that you are quite impressed by whatever you think is "official", Herr Schaefer. I am an Emacs *user*. Fortunately, we are still able to speak our minds. When you are elected Pope, maybe things will change in that regard. Apparently this has all come about because this happened: "I did not supply an elpy recipe to MELPA (quite intentionally so because of this problem). Someone else has. Suddenly, I have users coming to me with weird bugs related to them unknowingly using a development version of elpy." That's not MELPA's fault. Tell your users not to do that. Tell your users that any ELPY taken from MELPA will not be supported by you. Tell them to beware the evil MELPA. You say that you: "have a problem with getting feedback about a snapshot by users not knowing they are using a snapshot, never having wanted to use a snapshot, and being ill-equipped to even debug it because they do not know Emacs Lisp at all (and why should they, they just use Emacs). They were basically tricked into using a source of software that not ^^^^^^^ only accidentally exposes them to possibly broken software, but apparently even refuses to take steps to protect them ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ from that." To which the polite reply was: "Man, you just seem mad for no reason. We're just trying to offer solutions that would work for all of us, but I guess we will have to do it your way." Tell your users to stay away from dangerous MELPA. Just say no to MELPA if you don't want to use it. From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:22:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Stefan Monnier Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141797647023312 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:22:01 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 18:21:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56489 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxgSE-00063w-7e for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:21:10 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:38274) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxgSC-00063n-02 for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:21:09 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 998) id D3A23200D20; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 19:21:06 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on loki.jorgenschaefer.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from forcix (port-21631.pppoe.wtnet.de [46.59.146.42]) by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38BAB200D1D; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 19:21:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 19:21:05 +0100 From: Jorgen Schaefer Message-ID: <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> In-Reply-To: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; i586-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:56:53 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > When installing packages by name, only packages from archives with > > the highest priority are considered, before versions are compared. > > What can this be used for (other than the MELPA case, obviously)? Local/site-wide package archives that provide specific versions for packages that are required by the site that should not be overridden by external sources. (Can be emulated by pinning them.) Adding archives that provide testing or debugging packages which should not be installed by default, but can be installed by the user if they want to. (Can be emulated by adding the archive only for the duration of installing those packages.) More generally, the use cases are either very similar to the existing "pinning" functionality, or to adding archives only temporarily, except the interface is easier to the user and does not require constant manual work. > > This solves the "MELPA problem", where MELPA assigns date-based > > version numbers to packages which override all other archives. > > Giving MELPA a lower priority means packages are installed from > > MELPA only when the package is not available from other archives. > > I think the better way to solve the problem of versioning the > "bleeding edge package" would be to take the base version and tuck > the date to it (instead of only using the date). > I.e. file names like foo-mode-1.3.0.20141023.tar.gz where "1.3" is the > version of the last release. > > Of course that requires a change on MELPA side and I have no idea how > easy/feasible that would be. And I'm not completely sure it would > really be the best option either. This is not easy for the general MELPA, as not all packages have version numbers at all, but certainly feasible for MELPA stable. My patch that would have added this was rejected: https://github.com/milkypostman/melpa/pull/1771 The version number issues has been raised a few times, and it does not seem likely to get fixed any time soon. > > This can be overridden manually by the user. > > An important issue is what happens after the user did such an > override. In my above suggestion, the behavior would kind of suck > since package-list would then constantly recommend "upgrading" to the > official release (since 1.3 is "more uptodate" than "0.0.YYYYMMDD"). Good point. The correct implementation here would likely move the sorting by version number out of the `package--add-to-archive-contents' function and into the various users of `package-archive-contents', which should sort the list depending on their use case. This is a breaking API change and likely a good deal more work. Would a patch that does that be more acceptable? Regards, Jorgen From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. In-Reply-To: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> Resent-From: Achim Gratz Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:56:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.141797854426479 (code B ref -1); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:56:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 18:55:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56495 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxgzg-0006t1-9r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:55:44 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44007) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxgzd-0006ss-Gd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:55:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxgzV-0004I6-TA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:55:41 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:47888) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxgzV-0004I2-Pf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:55:33 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45720) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxgzP-00082R-DR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:55:33 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxgzJ-0004E1-1P for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:55:27 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:57921) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxgzI-0004Dm-Qa for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:55:20 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XxgzH-0001qH-1G for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 19:55:19 +0100 Received: from p4ff1cde3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([79.241.205.227]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 19:55:19 +0100 Received: from Stromeko by p4ff1cde3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 19:55:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ From: Achim Gratz Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 19:55:07 +0100 Organization: Linux Private Site Lines: 35 Message-ID: <87r3wbxpbo.fsf@Gertrud.fritz.box> References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p4ff1cde3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:SUKKfRm+YH24ZvcuyOf6nT/GZA0= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) Stefan Monnier writes: >> When installing packages by name, only packages from archives with >> the highest priority are considered, before versions are compared. > > What can this be used for (other than the MELPA case, obviously)? Just like with package archives in the GNU/Linux world, this is useful if the version numbering across those archives is incompatible even though they are supposedly serving the same packages. Priorities are a good way for a user to describe in which order he wants multiple archives to be searched for updates and have been used for this purpose elsewhere. > I think the better way to solve the problem of versioning the "bleeding > edge package" would be to take the base version and tuck the date to it > (instead of only using the date). MELPA has choisen their incompatible version number scheme deliberately and I don't think they are going to stop using it. > I.e. file names like foo-mode-1.3.0.20141023.tar.gz where "1.3" is the > version of the last release. That would not help since it would still be interpreted as a higher version than the released package and be an update candidate. Priorities do not need coordination among package archives. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Samples for the Waldorf Blofeld: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldSamplesExtra From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 20:01:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Cc: Stefan Monnier , 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141798244513650 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 20:01:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 20:00:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56580 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxi0b-0003XT-60 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 15:00:45 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:49811) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxi0X-0003RZ-37 for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 15:00:42 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 998) id CE5EE200D2F; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:00:39 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on loki.jorgenschaefer.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, MISSING_HEADERS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 Received: from forcix (port-21631.pppoe.wtnet.de [46.59.146.42]) by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 406CB200D2D; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:00:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:00:38 +0100 From: Jorgen Schaefer Message-ID: <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> In-Reply-To: <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; i586-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 19:21:05 +0100 Jorgen Schaefer wrote: > On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:56:53 -0500 > Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > This can be overridden manually by the user. > > > > An important issue is what happens after the user did such an > > override. In my above suggestion, the behavior would kind of suck > > since package-list would then constantly recommend "upgrading" to > > the official release (since 1.3 is "more uptodate" than > > "0.0.YYYYMMDD"). > > Good point. The correct implementation here would likely move the > sorting by version number out of the > `package--add-to-archive-contents' function and into the various > users of `package-archive-contents', which should sort the list > depending on their use case. This is a breaking API change and likely > a good deal more work. [...] Content analysis details: (1.2 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 19:21:05 +0100 Jorgen Schaefer wrote: > On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:56:53 -0500 > Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > This can be overridden manually by the user. > > > > An important issue is what happens after the user did such an > > override. In my above suggestion, the behavior would kind of suck > > since package-list would then constantly recommend "upgrading" to > > the official release (since 1.3 is "more uptodate" than > > "0.0.YYYYMMDD"). > > Good point. The correct implementation here would likely move the > sorting by version number out of the > `package--add-to-archive-contents' function and into the various > users of `package-archive-contents', which should sort the list > depending on their use case. This is a breaking API change and likely > a good deal more work. [...] Content analysis details: (1.2 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 19:21:05 +0100 Jorgen Schaefer wrote: > On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:56:53 -0500 > Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > This can be overridden manually by the user. > > > > An important issue is what happens after the user did such an > > override. In my above suggestion, the behavior would kind of suck > > since package-list would then constantly recommend "upgrading" to > > the official release (since 1.3 is "more uptodate" than > > "0.0.YYYYMMDD"). > > Good point. The correct implementation here would likely move the > sorting by version number out of the > `package--add-to-archive-contents' function and into the various > users of `package-archive-contents', which should sort the list > depending on their use case. This is a breaking API change and likely > a good deal more work. Actually, it should not suggest an upgrade in this case, because the currently installed version is higher than the highest available one (package-menu--find-upgrades). Currently, that method ignores priorities, though, as it uses an entirely different way of looking up the available packages. I'll provide a fixed patch. Regards, Jorgen From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> In-Reply-To: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:44:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Jorgen Schaefer Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14179886311617 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:44:01 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 21:43:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56621 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxjcM-0000Q1-RW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:43:51 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:34953) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxjcJ-0000Pm-1u for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:43:48 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A8216200D2E; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:43:45 +0100 (CET) From: Jorgen Schaefer Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:28:38 +0100 Message-Id: <20141207214345.A8216200D2E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) When installing packages by name, only packages from archives with the highest priority are considered, before versions are compared. This solves the "MELPA problem", where MELPA assigns date-based version numbers to packages which override all other archives. Giving MELPA a lower priority means packages are installed from MELPA only when the package is not available from other archives. This can be overridden manually by the user. --- lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- test/automated/package-test.el | 17 +++++++ 2 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index 4e5c397..844e5ea 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -228,6 +228,33 @@ a package can run arbitrary code." :group 'package :version "24.1") +(defcustom package-archive-default-priority 500 + "The default priority for archives. + +This is used if the archive is not found in +`package-archive-priorities'." + :type 'integer + :risky t + :group 'package + :version "25.1") + +(defcustom package-archive-priorities nil + "An alist of priorities for packages. + +Each element has the form (ARCHIVE-ID . PRIORITY). + +When installing packages, the package with the highest version +number from the archive with the highest priority is +selected. When higher versions are available from archives with +lower priorities, the user has to select those manually. + +Archives not in this list have the priority given in +`package-archive-default-priority'." + :type 'integer + :risky t + :group 'package + :version "25.1") + (defcustom package-pinned-packages nil "An alist of packages that are pinned to specific archives. This can be useful if you have multiple package archives enabled, @@ -1063,23 +1090,32 @@ Also, add the originating archive to the `package-desc' structure." ;; Older archive-contents files have only 4 ;; elements here. (package--ac-desc-extras (cdr package))))) - (existing-packages (assq name package-archive-contents)) (pinned-to-archive (assoc name package-pinned-packages))) - (cond - ;; Skip entirely if pinned to another archive. - ((and pinned-to-archive - (not (equal (cdr pinned-to-archive) archive))) - nil) - ((not existing-packages) - (push (list name pkg-desc) package-archive-contents)) - (t - (while - (if (and (cdr existing-packages) - (version-list-< - version (package-desc-version (cadr existing-packages)))) - (setq existing-packages (cdr existing-packages)) - (push pkg-desc (cdr existing-packages)) - nil)))))) + ;; Skip entirely if pinned to another archive. + (when (not (and pinned-to-archive + (not (equal (cdr pinned-to-archive) archive)))) + (setq package-archive-contents + (package--add-to-alist pkg-desc package-archive-contents))))) + +(defun package--add-to-alist (pkg-desc alist) + "Add PKG-DESC to ALIST. + +Packages are grouped by name. The package descriptions are sorted +by version number." + (let* ((name (package-desc-name pkg-desc)) + (priority-version (package-desc-priority-version pkg-desc)) + (existing-packages (assq name alist))) + (if (not existing-packages) + (cons (list name pkg-desc) + alist) + (while (if (and (cdr existing-packages) + (version-list-< priority-version + (package-desc-priority-version + (cadr existing-packages)))) + (setq existing-packages (cdr existing-packages)) + (push pkg-desc (cdr existing-packages)) + nil)) + alist))) (defun package-download-transaction (packages) "Download and install all the packages in PACKAGES. @@ -1268,6 +1304,25 @@ The file can either be a tar file or an Emacs Lisp file." "Return the archive containing the package NAME." (cdr (assoc (package-desc-archive desc) package-archives))) +(defun package-archive-priority (archive) + "Return the priority of ARCHIVE. + +The archive priorities are specified in +`package-archive-priorities' and +`package-archive-default-priority'." + (or (cdr (assoc archive package-archive-priorities)) + package-archive-default-priority)) + +(defun package-desc-priority-version (pkg-desc) + "Return the version PKG-DESC with the archive priority prepended. + +This allows for easy comparison of package versions from +different archives if archive priorities are meant to be taken in +consideration." + (cons (package-archive-priority + (package-desc-archive pkg-desc)) + (package-desc-version pkg-desc))) + (defun package--download-one-archive (archive file) "Retrieve an archive file FILE from ARCHIVE, and cache it. ARCHIVE should be a cons cell of the form (NAME . LOCATION), @@ -1940,18 +1995,18 @@ If optional arg BUTTON is non-nil, describe its associated package." ;; ENTRY is (PKG-DESC [NAME VERSION STATUS DOC]) (let ((pkg-desc (car entry)) (status (aref (cadr entry) 2))) - (cond ((member status '("installed" "unsigned")) - (push pkg-desc installed)) - ((member status '("available" "new")) - (push (cons (package-desc-name pkg-desc) pkg-desc) - available))))) + (cond ((member status '("installed" "unsigned")) + (push pkg-desc installed)) + ((member status '("available" "new")) + (setq available (package--add-to-alist pkg-desc available)))))) ;; Loop through list of installed packages, finding upgrades. (dolist (pkg-desc installed) - (let ((avail-pkg (assq (package-desc-name pkg-desc) available))) - (and avail-pkg - (version-list-< (package-desc-version pkg-desc) - (package-desc-version (cdr avail-pkg))) - (push avail-pkg upgrades)))) + (let* ((name (package-desc-name pkg-desc)) + (avail-pkg (cadr (assq name available)))) + (and avail-pkg + (version-list-< (package-desc-priority-version pkg-desc) + (package-desc-priority-version avail-pkg)) + (push (cons name avail-pkg) upgrades)))) upgrades)) (defun package-menu-mark-upgrades () diff --git a/test/automated/package-test.el b/test/automated/package-test.el index 6e7994a..2a337fb 100644 --- a/test/automated/package-test.el +++ b/test/automated/package-test.el @@ -230,6 +230,23 @@ Must called from within a `tar-mode' buffer." (package-refresh-contents) (package-install 'simple-single))) +(ert-deftest package-test-install-prioritized () + "Install a lower version from a higher-prioritized archive." + (with-package-test () + (let* ((newer-version (expand-file-name "data/package/newer-versions" + package-test-file-dir)) + (package-archives `(("older" . ,package-test-data-dir) + ("newer" . ,newer-version))) + (package-archive-priorities '(("newer" . 100)))) + + (package-initialize) + (package-refresh-contents) + (package-install 'simple-single) + + (let ((installed (cdr (assq 'simple-single package-alist)))) + (should (version-list-= '(1 3) + (package-desc-version installed))))))) + (ert-deftest package-test-install-multifile () "Check properties of the installed multi-file package." (with-package-test (:basedir "data/package" :install '(multi-file)) -- 1.7.10.4 From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:47:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14179888152087 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:47:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 21:46:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56628 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxjfK-0000Xa-IY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:46:54 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:35999) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxjfG-0000XB-F9 for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:46:50 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 998) id C9FEC200D2F; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:46:49 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on loki.jorgenschaefer.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from forcix (port-21631.pppoe.wtnet.de [46.59.146.42]) by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B2D9200D2D for <19296@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:46:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:46:48 +0100 From: Jorgen Schaefer Message-ID: <20141207224648.6fcbdf07@forcix> In-Reply-To: <20141207214345.A8216200D2E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> References: <20141207214345.A8216200D2E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; i586-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:28:38 +0100 Jorgen Schaefer wrote: > lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 107 This has some more reworks and abstractions, but now works well for me for both installing new packages and upgrading existing ones. Regards, Jorgen From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:28:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer , 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14179912377814 (code B ref 19296); Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:28:01 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Dec 2014 22:27:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56643 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxkIO-00021y-OL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 17:27:17 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:27127) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxkIM-00021n-FO for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 17:27:14 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id sB7MRBlO013662 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:27:12 GMT Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sB7MRA8l021046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:27:11 GMT Received: from abhmp0015.oracle.com (abhmp0015.oracle.com [141.146.116.21]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB7MRA3K008440; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:27:10 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:27:12 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams References: <<20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de>> <<20141207214345.A8216200D2E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de>> In-Reply-To: <<20141207214345.A8216200D2E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > This solves the "MELPA problem", where MELPA assigns date-based > version numbers to packages which override all other archives. > Giving MELPA a lower priority means packages are installed from > MELPA only when the package is not available from other archives. IOW, it creates a new MELPA problem. > This can be overridden manually by the user. IOW, MELPA users will be made to jump through additional hoops. And why are we choosing to do this to the greatest number of users and for the greatest number of packages? (MELPA has more users, more packages, and more downloads.) From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:46:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Achim Gratz Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141800670411873 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:46:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2014 02:45:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56742 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxoJr-00035H-3r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:45:03 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:3338) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxoJp-00034U-9f for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:45:02 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj8PAOwQflRFxLi7/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVawjuCYgQCAoEkFwEBAQEBAXyEAwEBAwFWIxALDiYSFBgNJIhKCb57l14BAQEBAQUBAQEBHpBvB4RIBYQ6hkeMVQWBbINrjHSFCYF4hBkhgncBAQE X-IPAS-Result: Aj8PAOwQflRFxLi7/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVawjuCYgQCAoEkFwEBAQEBAXyEAwEBAwFWIxALDiYSFBgNJIhKCb57l14BAQEBAQUBAQEBHpBvB4RIBYQ6hkeMVQWBbINrjHSFCYF4hBkhgncBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,502,1413259200"; d="scan'208";a="99822107" Received: from 69-196-184-187.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.184.187]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Dec 2014 21:45:00 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 3225A9896; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:45:00 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <87r3wbxpbo.fsf@Gertrud.fritz.box> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:45:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87r3wbxpbo.fsf@Gertrud.fritz.box> (Achim Gratz's message of "Sun, 07 Dec 2014 19:55:07 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) >> I.e. file names like foo-mode-1.3.0.20141023.tar.gz where "1.3" is the >> version of the last release. > That would not help since it would still be interpreted as a higher > version than the released package and be an update candidate. > Priorities do not need coordination among package archives. The main problem, AFAIK (at least that's the one that caused bug reports and hence brought this problem to my attention) is when the MELPA recipe points at an unmaintained branch, so you end up stuck with version 20120415 while a brand new 1.4 just came out on GNU ELPA. This wouldn't happen with foo-mode-1.3.0.20120415.tar.gz. Stefan From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:49:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141800693112510 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:49:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2014 02:48:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56747 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxoNX-0003Fg-71 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:48:51 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:18871) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxoNV-0003FW-2d for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:48:49 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwPAOwQflRFxLi7/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQMBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiEoJ1lkBAQEBBgEBAQEekC1CB4RIBYsBjFUFl1SBeIQZIYE2gUEBAQE X-IPAS-Result: AjwPAOwQflRFxLi7/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQMBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiEoJ1lkBAQEBBgEBAQEekC1CB4RIBYsBjFUFl1SBeIQZIYE2gUEBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,502,1413259200"; d="scan'208";a="99822264" Received: from 69-196-184-187.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.184.187]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Dec 2014 21:48:48 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 4489C9896; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:48:48 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:48:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> (Jorgen Schaefer's message of "Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:00:38 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > Actually, it should not suggest an upgrade in this case, because the > currently installed version is higher than the highest available one > (package-menu--find-upgrades). So we're back with the same problem as we currently have: if you've installed MELPA's 20120425 and the package gets into GNU ELPA with version 1.4, you'll keep using the older version. Stefan From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. In-Reply-To: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> Resent-From: Achim Gratz Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 07:24:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.14180234027827 (code B ref -1); Mon, 08 Dec 2014 07:24:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2014 07:23:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56785 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XxsfB-00022A-HL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:23:21 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33754) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxsf9-000220-CB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:23:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxsf2-00061E-2e for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:23:19 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:37806) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxsf1-00061A-Vz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:23:12 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35433) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxsev-0007gW-N6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:23:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxsep-0005vC-Fa for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:23:05 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:51756) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxsep-0005uw-8b for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:22:59 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxseo-00085G-4T for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:22:58 +0100 Received: from p54b7e5f2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([84.183.229.242]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:22:58 +0100 Received: from Stromeko by p54b7e5f2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:22:58 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ From: Achim Gratz Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:22:48 +0100 Organization: Linux Private Site Lines: 21 Message-ID: <874mt6ip13.fsf@Gertrud.fritz.box> References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <87r3wbxpbo.fsf@Gertrud.fritz.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p54b7e5f2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:MM+nEj8U/yBNDcIPpWof0gxnzTI= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) Stefan Monnier writes: > The main problem, AFAIK (at least that's the one that caused bug reports > and hence brought this problem to my attention) is when the MELPA recipe > points at an unmaintained branch, so you end up stuck with version > 20120415 while a brand new 1.4 just came out on GNU ELPA. This wouldn't > happen with foo-mode-1.3.0.20120415.tar.gz. Forget MELPA for the moment. The problem this patch solves is giving users some option to rank the archives when those package archives can't be bothered to coordinate their package versioning or if the user explicitly wants to install from a different archive than the one with the latest version. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf rackAttack: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:59:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Stefan Monnier Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14180363311287 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:59:01 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2014 10:58:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57054 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxw1j-0000Kh-1g for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 05:58:51 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:50093) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xxw1g-0000KW-ON for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 05:58:49 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 998) id 97B1B200D30; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 11:58:47 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on loki.jorgenschaefer.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from forcix (port-9803.pppoe.wtnet.de [84.46.38.113]) by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6A6B200D2D; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 11:58:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 11:58:45 +0100 From: Jorgen Schaefer Message-ID: <20141208115845.1adaa261@forcix> In-Reply-To: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; i586-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:48:48 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Actually, it should not suggest an upgrade in this case, because the > > currently installed version is higher than the highest available one > > (package-menu--find-upgrades). > > So we're back with the same problem as we currently have: > if you've installed MELPA's 20120425 and the package gets into GNU > ELPA with version 1.4, you'll keep using the older version. What kind of behavior do we want, then? :-) The problem I am trying to solve is: When I install a package by name using M-x package-install foo, I want to install the highest version of "foo" from any repository but MELPA if it is available, and if not, the highest version of "foo" from MELPA. When I installed a package from another repository than MELPA, and I ask package.el to upgrade all packages, I do not want to get an upgrade suggestion to MELPA. The problem you now mention is: What should happen if I installed a package from MELPA and it is now available from another repository? I don't think there is a good solution for that. We could come up with an idea such as "if, at the time this repository was chosen, the package was not available from another repository, but now it is, it should ...", but that seems rather arcane and requires us to store a lot more information than we currently do. Right now, the upgrades should simply stick to MELPA. Once MELPA, always MELPA. I think this is, while maybe not the best possible option, an acceptable one. Considering the two problems I described above are solved, and the default behavior is not affected at all, I think this patch is a strict improvement over the current situation. Regards, Jorgen From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 15:43:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14180533751769 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 08 Dec 2014 15:43:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2014 15:42:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57802 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xy0Sc-0000ST-8F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:42:54 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:56177) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xy0SY-0000SF-2W for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:42:51 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwPAOwQflRFxLi7/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQMBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kLogcCdZZAQEBAQYBAQEBHpBvB4RIBYsBjFUFhVeDOI5FgXiEGSGCdwEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: AjwPAOwQflRFxLi7/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQMBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kLogcCdZZAQEBAQYBAQEBHpBvB4RIBYsBjFUFhVeDOI5FgXiEGSGCdwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,502,1413259200"; d="scan'208";a="99869624" Received: from 69-196-184-187.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.196.184.187]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Dec 2014 10:42:49 -0500 Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 0E7CE66162; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:42:49 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> <20141208115845.1adaa261@forcix> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:42:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141208115845.1adaa261@forcix> (Jorgen Schaefer's message of "Mon, 8 Dec 2014 11:58:45 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > What kind of behavior do we want, then? :-) That's the first question, indeed. > When I install a package by name using M-x package-install foo, I want > to install the highest version of "foo" from any repository but MELPA > if it is available, and if not, the highest version of "foo" from MELPA. OK. > When I installed a package from another repository than MELPA, and I > ask package.el to upgrade all packages, I do not want to get an upgrade > suggestion to MELPA. OK. > The problem you now mention is: What should happen if I installed a > package from MELPA and it is now available from another repository? Right. Or, to more generally, as suggested by Achim: - I've installed version V2 from repository R2 - there's a version V1 from repository R1 - V2 > V1 - yet V1 is more recent than V2 (because R1 and R2 use different versioning schemes). > I don't think there is a good solution for that. But that is the problem that causes most harm since people get stuck with an old version. > We could come up with an idea such as "if, at the time this repository > was chosen, the package was not available from another repository, but > now it is, it should ...", but that seems rather arcane and requires > us to store a lot more information than we currently do. Last time we discussed it, another suggestion was to supplement the version info with a date info. That doesn't in itself solve the problem, but it does provide enough extra info that package.el could try to be more clever. BTW, there's yet another interesting situation to consider (which we've had once in GNU ELPA for AucTeX): - V2 is in R2, user installs it. - Some problem is found in V2 - R2 reverts to V1 - User is never told that reverting to V1 is the recommended course of action Now that I think about it, maybe a better solution (which will also handle this last case) is to compare the old archive-contents for each archive and use that diff as a basis to discover what is new (instead of relying on version numbers). This last approach suffers from the problem that this diff is naturally transient, so we'd have to accumulate those diffs that can be relevant to the user and stash them in some file until the user has properly been told about it (and she should be allowed to do "sorry, can't deal with it right now, please remind me later"). Stefan From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:50:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Stefan Monnier Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14180645608617 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:50:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2014 18:49:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57994 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xy3N2-0002Ev-1q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 13:49:20 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:50456) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xy3My-0002EZ-EM for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 13:49:17 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 998) id E789C200D3A; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:49:14 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on loki.jorgenschaefer.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from forcix (port-3334.pppoe.wtnet.de [84.46.13.19]) by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4238F200D2E; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:49:14 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:49:13 +0100 From: Jorgen Schaefer Message-ID: <20141208194913.10cf0340@forcix> In-Reply-To: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> <20141208115845.1adaa261@forcix> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; i586-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:42:49 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > I don't think there is a good solution for that. > > But that is the problem that causes most harm since people get stuck > with an old version. I don't think this is the problem that causes most harm. For people to be stuck with an old version, the package needs to be removed from MELPA, else the version from MELPA will always be "the newest". The problem that I am trying to solve is that it is currently meaningless to have e.g. both MELPA and MELPA Stable in the archive list, because all packages in MELPA Stable are also available from MELPA, so if you have both in your archive list, you will always get the MELPA ones, never the MELPA Stable ones. But you do want MELPA in the archive list, because MELPA Stable only has about a third of the packages of MELPA. > BTW, there's yet another interesting situation to consider (which > we've had once in GNU ELPA for AucTeX): > - V2 is in R2, user installs it. > - Some problem is found in V2 > - R2 reverts to V1 > - User is never told that reverting to V1 is the recommended course > of action In other package archives, this is a problem of the person doing the releases, not the archive. They should do another release V3 that is equivalent to V1, not simply "revoke" an existing release. > Now that I think about it, maybe a better solution Ok, there are a number of possible approaches, all hypothetical. Let's be more concrete. What requirements would a patch need to fulfill that you deem it acceptable to be applied to the Emacs repository that solves my original problem (i.e. only install packages from a given repository if the package is not available from other repositories)? Regards, Jorgen From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141861956330314 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:00:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Dec 2014 04:59:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46360 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0Nkg-0007ss-Th for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 23:59:23 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:5603) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0Nkd-0007sa-F6 for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 23:59:20 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwPAOwQflTO+ILA/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQMBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kLogcCdZZAQEBAQYBAQEBAR2QLUIHhEgFiwGDTYkIBYx4ilyBeIQZIYE2gUEBAQE X-IPAS-Result: AjwPAOwQflTO+ILA/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQMBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kLogcCdZZAQEBAQYBAQEBAR2QLUIHhEgFiwGDTYkIBYx4ilyBeIQZIYE2gUEBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,502,1413259200"; d="scan'208";a="101994475" Received: from 206-248-130-192.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([206.248.130.192]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 14 Dec 2014 23:59:13 -0500 Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 2E43DAE15A; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 23:59:13 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> <20141208115845.1adaa261@forcix> <20141208194913.10cf0340@forcix> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 23:59:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141208194913.10cf0340@forcix> (Jorgen Schaefer's message of "Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:49:13 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) >> > I don't think there is a good solution for that. >> But that is the problem that causes most harm since people get stuck >> with an old version. > I don't think this is the problem that causes most harm. For people to > be stuck with an old version, the package needs to be removed from > MELPA, else the version from MELPA will always be "the newest". Experience shows that MELPA can fall behind also if the development moves elsewhere (e.g. in GNU ELPA) and its recipe is not updated. > The problem that I am trying to solve is that it is currently > meaningless to have e.g. both MELPA and MELPA Stable in the archive > list, I see, that makes sense. > What requirements would a patch need to fulfill that you deem it > acceptable to be applied to the Emacs repository that solves my > original problem (i.e. only install packages from a given repository if > the package is not available from other repositories)? I'd like a solution that also addresses, at least partly, the other problem (the one where the MELPA version is superseded by a version elsewhere such as in GNU ELPA). It's not important to automatically upgrade the package from the MELPA version to the GNU ELPA version, but the user should somehow be warned at some point that the MELPA version is not the latest any more. I think in general it would be desirable to try and remember where a package came from so that upgrading to a version in another repository doesn't happen automatically. Stefan From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:37:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Stefan Monnier Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141863257617840 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:37:01 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Dec 2014 08:36:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46407 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0R8Z-0004df-Hn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 03:36:15 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:58722) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0R8W-0004dV-LK for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 03:36:13 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 998) id 43E08200D3E; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:36:11 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on loki.jorgenschaefer.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from [192.168.178.23] (port-20096.pppoe.wtnet.de [46.59.140.37]) by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFC2E200D3B; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:36:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <548E9D7A.5090802@forcix.cx> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:36:10 +0100 From: Jorgen Schaefer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> <20141208115845.1adaa261@forcix> <20141208194913.10cf0340@forcix> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) On 12/15/2014 05:59 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> What requirements would a patch need to fulfill that you deem it >> acceptable to be applied to the Emacs repository that solves my >> original problem (i.e. only install packages from a given repository if >> the package is not available from other repositories)? > > I'd like a solution that also addresses, at least partly, the other > problem (the one where the MELPA version is superseded by a version > elsewhere such as in GNU ELPA). > > It's not important to automatically upgrade the package from the MELPA > version to the GNU ELPA version, but the user should somehow be warned > at some point that the MELPA version is not the latest any more. So a warning "this package was installed from archive X, but is not available from there anymore" would suffice to fulfill this requirement, correct? Would it be enough if the package list displayed a string like "changed archive" or similar? (This needs a shorter name.) > I think in general it would be desirable to try and remember where > a package came from so that upgrading to a version in another repository > doesn't happen automatically. I can see two ways for this. One, we overwrite the package's -pkg.el file on install time with an expanded version that includes our own infos, e.g. :archive "name" for this (`package-generate-description-file' already has the code to generate this file, and it just needs to be called even if the file already exists). Alternatively, we add an .archive file to the package directory recording the archive this came from. I would tend to lean to overriding the -pkg.el file, but I do not have any big preferences. Which way would you prefer? In either case, we should populate the pkg-desc in `package-alist' from this, which should make it easy to implement the display above. If I add this functionality, will that make the reminder of the patch acceptable to be included in Emacs? Regards, Jorgen From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Ted Zlatanov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:08:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer Cc: Stefan Monnier , 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.14186452775085 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:08:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Dec 2014 12:07:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46519 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0URQ-0001Jw-V7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:07:57 -0500 Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com ([209.85.192.54]:37609) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0URO-0001Je-AY for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:07:54 -0500 Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id l89so8364710qgf.13 for <19296@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 04:07:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lifelogs.com; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:mail-copies-to :gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=5jRmXMrqdvtWm/kCbupA+n0AFJ75AvINCozghdMj3jY=; b=XMB5nJahI8WPYZ6gshSqm/WRYC2zmkvZY3Lv8ywYTsm+PVGfSpYaGx85NK/3jr7dyf AedbAibDAdHAPShtHWf8ib/Z2oz4O5sDN9misZpQ22H4zYiBCm3tgvaKV8t70HgHv2J/ EV1Uro7wy09TIFDCCgNq2ar9d0Kypls5Z7TBE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:organization:references :mail-copies-to:gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=5jRmXMrqdvtWm/kCbupA+n0AFJ75AvINCozghdMj3jY=; b=HpoVaKSbOvam6Ztk8Uvzqxnl4/lCRdZNRdYGeAm1Nmr26D5ypAHjC4MZy/smh5qaO3 3RzRcKtYHtfb4DQIbC/vvaQRUZtr0C9jequ+AOuFDFzIYYmsJDSqRh2knLqD+s48GSoZ waDni3t9wxNvPYmZ01ZSSXCiMEnVj1+RcPwv+w4qYC2Slug2exULwmETtblVwSz5r1eK 9kyIrlbnDmb5AI4Z7wZLGKiBW3wKydQM4507+J2Gs0twzfQr7bCyW4MS1TGggFQ3E31X /meSHhXs2e9WXRKvJHUyl/sB8prFm2uzn2ZUzOIGBwmIMI0Z5hUo8V8WXngXnovtkz7/ xydg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkq0sE0cF7EzeWSvMayzVsIJ3YJtWWxEzEgre+qLUZT+06ZvNWmB7XL3w0+H66h2oo1Kuw X-Received: by 10.140.104.19 with SMTP id z19mr2387928qge.65.1418645268981; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 04:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from flea (c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [98.229.61.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e108sm10263877qge.15.2014.12.15.04.07.47 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 04:07:48 -0800 (PST) From: Ted Zlatanov Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=A2=D0=B5=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=BE=D1=80_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=97=D0=BB=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B2?= @ Cienfuegos References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> <20141208115845.1adaa261@forcix> <20141208194913.10cf0340@forcix> <548E9D7A.5090802@forcix.cx> X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never Gmane-Reply-To-List: yes Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:08:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: <548E9D7A.5090802@forcix.cx> (Jorgen Schaefer's message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:36:10 +0100") Message-ID: <87r3w1w1wx.fsf@lifelogs.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:36:10 +0100 Jorgen Schaefer wrote: JS> I can see two ways for this. One, we overwrite the package's -pkg.el JS> file on install time with an expanded version that includes our own JS> infos, e.g. :archive "name" for this JS> (`package-generate-description-file' already has the code to generate JS> this file, and it just needs to be called even if the file already JS> exists). Alternatively, we add an .archive file to the package JS> directory recording the archive this came from. JS> I would tend to lean to overriding the -pkg.el file, but I do not have JS> any big preferences. Which way would you prefer? Keep in mind the -pkg.el file can be signed by the archive maintainers, IIRC. Ted From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:53:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141865515525559 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:53:01 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Dec 2014 14:52:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46571 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0X0k-0006eB-PU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:52:34 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:54522) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0X0i-0006dv-PB for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:52:33 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwPAOwQflTO+ILA/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQMBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiEoJ1lkBAQEHAgEfkG8HhEgFiwGDYYh0BZdUgXiEGSGCdwEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: AjwPAOwQflTO+ILA/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQMBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiEoJ1lkBAQEHAgEfkG8HhEgFiwGDYYh0BZdUgXiEGSGCdwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,502,1413259200"; d="scan'208";a="102531113" Received: from 206-248-130-192.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([206.248.130.192]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Dec 2014 09:52:27 -0500 Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id A5925660D3; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:52:26 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> <20141208115845.1adaa261@forcix> <20141208194913.10cf0340@forcix> <548E9D7A.5090802@forcix.cx> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:52:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <548E9D7A.5090802@forcix.cx> (Jorgen Schaefer's message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:36:10 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > So a warning "this package was installed from archive X, but is not > available from there anymore" would suffice to fulfill this requirement, > correct? IIUC this is a very rare case. The more common and important case is when the package is available from several archives at the same time. > Would it be enough if the package list displayed a string like > "changed archive" or similar? (This needs a shorter name.) >From the UI point of view, I don't know how best to display "new version available from other archive". Maybe it could be a message or prompt that shows up when you "Mark Upgradable Packages"? > I would tend to lean to overriding the -pkg.el file, but I do not have any > big preferences. Which way would you prefer? Either way seems OK. > If I add this functionality, will that make the reminder of the patch > acceptable to be included in Emacs? Not sure what "remainder" you're referring to. Stefan From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Jorgen Schaefer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:56:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Stefan Monnier Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141865534526163 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:56:03 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Dec 2014 14:55:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46903 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0X3o-0006nt-Av for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:55:44 -0500 Received: from loki.jorgenschaefer.de ([87.230.15.51]:38297) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0X3j-0006nY-5B for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:55:40 -0500 Received: by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix, from userid 998) id 8C737200D43; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:55:37 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on loki.jorgenschaefer.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from [192.168.178.23] (port-20096.pppoe.wtnet.de [46.59.140.37]) by loki.jorgenschaefer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE359200D40; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:55:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <548EF667.6010204@forcix.cx> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:55:35 +0100 From: Jorgen Schaefer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> <20141208115845.1adaa261@forcix> <20141208194913.10cf0340@forcix> <548E9D7A.5090802@forcix.cx> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) On 12/15/2014 03:52 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> If I add this functionality, will that make the reminder of the patch >> acceptable to be included in Emacs? > > Not sure what "remainder" you're referring to. The part where M-x package-install RET foo RET will install foo-1.2.3 over foo-20141205.315 when the latter is only available from a repository with a lower priority, and where "U" in the package list will not upgrade foo-1.2.3 to foo-20141205.315 when the latter is only available from a repository with a lower priority. That is, the whole point of the original patch. Regards, Jorgen From unknown Sat Aug 09 01:09:43 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#19296: [PATCH] Package archives now have priorities. Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:08:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jorgen Schaefer Cc: 19296@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 19296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19296.141867045917748 (code B ref 19296); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:08:02 +0000 Received: (at 19296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Dec 2014 19:07:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47169 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0azb-0004cC-5S for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:07:39 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:54936) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0azZ-0004c0-V4 for 19296@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:07:38 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj8PAOwQflTO+ILA/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVawjuCYgQCAoEkFwEBAQEBAXyEAwEBAwFWIwULCw4mEhQYDSSISgnWWQEBAQEBBQEBAQEekG8HhEgFiwGMVQWFV4M4jkWBeIQZIYJ3AQEB X-IPAS-Result: Aj8PAOwQflTO+ILA/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVawjuCYgQCAoEkFwEBAQEBAXyEAwEBAwFWIwULCw4mEhQYDSSISgnWWQEBAQEBBQEBAQEekG8HhEgFiwGMVQWFV4M4jkWBeIQZIYJ3AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,502,1413259200"; d="scan'208";a="102567504" Received: from 206-248-130-192.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([206.248.130.192]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Dec 2014 14:07:32 -0500 Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 45C3C660DC; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:07:32 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier Message-ID: References: <20141207132244.A14A7200D1E@loki.jorgenschaefer.de> <20141207192105.48c4c41b@forcix> <20141207210038.384c7e84@forcix> <20141208115845.1adaa261@forcix> <20141208194913.10cf0340@forcix> <548E9D7A.5090802@forcix.cx> <548EF667.6010204@forcix.cx> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:07:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <548EF667.6010204@forcix.cx> (Jorgen Schaefer's message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:55:35 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) > The part where M-x package-install RET foo RET will install foo-1.2.3 over > foo-20141205.315 when the latter is only available from a repository > with a lower priority, and where "U" in the package list will not upgrade > foo-1.2.3 to foo-20141205.315 when the latter is only available > from a repository with a lower priority. So there are two part above: - decide which repository to use when M-x package-install is used. - don't switch repository for upgrade. I don't think we need priorities for the second part once we refrain from automatically switching from one repository to another during upgrade. For the first part priorities could still be useful, indeed, tho we should simply prompt the user for those cases where there is a choice between several repositories. So, overall, I'm not sure having repository priorities would be really important, but the patch is fairly small, so I think it's OK. BTW, please simplify the patch by removing package-archive-default-priority (and hard code 0 as the default priority). Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jan 20 02:45:58 2015 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Jan 2015 07:45:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50222 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YDTVe-00063n-BE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 02:45:58 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:48739 ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YDTVb-00063e-Ky for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 02:45:56 -0500 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YDTVa-0001wn-EB for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 02:45:55 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 02:45:54 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: control message for bug 19296 To: X-Mailer: mail (GNU Mailutils 2.1) From: Glenn Morris X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) close 19296 25.1