GNU bug report logs - #22628
Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 22628 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 22628 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Cc: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:11:06 +0100

Hello!

In current Guix master we have Texinfo 6.0 and 6.1.  With 6.0 installed
in my profile, hitting ^ in the M-x guix-installed-packages buffer does
not mark Texinfo as a candidate for upgrade.

Ludo’.

Message #8 received at 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
To: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
Cc: 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:40:53 +0300

Ludovic Courtès (2016-02-11 12:11 +0300) wrote:

> Hello!
>
> In current Guix master we have Texinfo 6.0 and 6.1.  With 6.0 installed
> in my profile, hitting ^ in the M-x guix-installed-packages buffer does
> not mark Texinfo as a candidate for upgrade.

The fact that we have 2 versions is the answer.  In Emacs UI a package
is not considered to be obsolete if there is a package definition with
the same name+version.

That's why "texinfo 6.0" is green in the list, not red (as obsolete
packages).

I believe marking such packages as obsolete is not correct and it may be
confusing.  See <https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-02-09#T909651>.

For example, if a user makes a package for some old version, (s)he wants
to use it and probably doesn't want it to be updated by accident
(because it is obsolete).

-- 
Alex

Message #11 received at 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:49:50 +0100

Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> The fact that we have 2 versions is the answer.  In Emacs UI a package
> is not considered to be obsolete if there is a package definition with
> the same name+version.
>
> That's why "texinfo 6.0" is green in the list, not red (as obsolete
> packages).

Oh, to me, ^ meant “upgrade”, like ‘guix package -u’ but only taking
into account the version number (‘guix package -u’ upgrades if the store
file name differs, even if the version number is the same.)

> I believe marking such packages as obsolete is not correct and it may be
> confusing.  See <https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-02-09#T909651>.

I think we need a different solution for packages that have several
series.  For instance, we could have:

  (define gnupg-2.0
    (package …
      (properties `((series . "2.0")))))

and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
version prefix is “2.0”.

WDYT?

Ludo’.

Message #14 received at 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>, 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:01:05 +0100

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I think we need a different solution for packages that have several
> series.  For instance, we could have:
>   (define gnupg-2.0
>     (package …
>       (properties `((series . "2.0")))))
> and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
> version prefix is “2.0”.
> WDYT?

This is so obvious that one wonders how we did not think of it earlier :-)

Andreas

Message #17 received at 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
To: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
Cc: 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:29:34 +0300

Ludovic Courtès (2016-02-12 16:49 +0300) wrote:

> Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> The fact that we have 2 versions is the answer.  In Emacs UI a package
>> is not considered to be obsolete if there is a package definition with
>> the same name+version.
>>
>> That's why "texinfo 6.0" is green in the list, not red (as obsolete
>> packages).
>
> Oh, to me, ^ meant “upgrade”, like ‘guix package -u’ but only taking
> into account the version number (‘guix package -u’ upgrades if the store
> file name differs, even if the version number is the same.)

OK, you can still mark it for upgrading using "U" key.  If you don't mind
I wouldn't like to change the current behavior (at least now) :-)

>> I believe marking such packages as obsolete is not correct and it may be
>> confusing.  See <https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-02-09#T909651>.
>
> I think we need a different solution for packages that have several
> series.  For instance, we could have:
>
>   (define gnupg-2.0
>     (package …
>       (properties `((series . "2.0")))))
>
> and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
> version prefix is “2.0”.
>
> WDYT?

Yeah, this looks like a great solution for such issues!

-- 
Alex

Message #20 received at 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 
 Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>, Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Subject: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some
 upgrades
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:54:32 +0100

Dear,

The bug [1] is about Emacs-Guix and the installed package list
proposed to upgrade.

[1] http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/22628


To be precise, the wish that Ludo wrote [2] is:

<<
I think we need a different solution for packages that have several
series.  For instance, we could have:

  (define gnupg-2.0
    (package …
      (properties `((series . "2.0")))))

and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
version prefix is “2.0”.
>>


What is the status of such? Does it still make sense?
Personally, I do not feel the need of the series property, what the
others think?


I propose to close this long standing bug. :-)

All the best,
simon


[2] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22628#11

Message #23 received at 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>, 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Subject: Re: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses
 some upgrades
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:03:01 +0100

Hi!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> To be precise, the wish that Ludo wrote [2] is:
>
> <<
> I think we need a different solution for packages that have several
> series.  For instance, we could have:
>
>   (define gnupg-2.0
>     (package …
>       (properties `((series . "2.0")))))
>
> and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
> version prefix is “2.0”.
>>>
>
>
> What is the status of such? Does it still make sense?
> Personally, I do not feel the need of the series property, what the
> others think?

I think it’s the kind of thing that would be nice but is not often
useful, so the benefit/cost ratio may not be that high.  :-)

No objection to closing the bug!

Ludo’.

Message #28 received at 22628-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: 22628-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses
 some upgrades
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:22:02 +0100

Dear,

Let the future speaks. :-)
Closing and keeping in mind this kind of feature.

All the best,
simon

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.