From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 11 04:11:28 2016 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2016 09:11:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35655 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aTnHc-00077o-DU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:28 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40516) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aTnHb-00077c-5i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:27 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTnHS-000567-Kz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:21 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:58821) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTnHS-000563-I5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:18 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59661) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTnHO-0007ki-Lb for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTnHN-00053p-KB for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:14 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51704) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTnHJ-000531-PU; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:09 -0500 Received: from pluto.bordeaux.inria.fr ([193.50.110.57]:57496 helo=pluto) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aTnHI-00036N-WA; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:09 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 23 =?utf-8?Q?Pluvi=C3=B4se?= an 224 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x3D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:11:06 +0100 Message-ID: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -5.3 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: Alex Kost X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: -5.3 (-----) 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=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 12 05:41:01 2016 Received: (at 22628) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2016 10:41:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37289 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aUB9p-0007mk-J7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 05:41:01 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com ([209.85.217.180]:33052) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aUB9o-0007mS-Hh for 22628@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 05:41:00 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id x4so43299403lbm.0 for <22628@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:41:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cJf1/S+diQx1SSYGBHuKdYGqDWKr/ZyIM5/Ih92oTTg=; b=ZS29kRHS7R1bzG8nk6Tuu6+2KVgV9hqGBSc6B9ROzpqcp+HysbQ8H+Vdry71mbymsz nFFm97c371egQZqAz4nOGcz9NNhgNfvWJcjjilhQvDZZzDpCIV7fTKKeDxb5XRYC2SVj sp5MMJaaCzmIsguGDAKDBG+5uwunq5FHFzlwDhOH0pCt89qaXg9CXs3PdbAFLQf3+Tuo 3Bma6HuEDC6KrX4YhZIAGcl25oXifmBfVlyKCbTMi2/unCvxOgohWGNmJbOdOPP7oHDr fYIp7uHg63+aWc7VA5hEcgk1WU1wMpoMfmg9dsudJjOM1Q1BR2yIXRZgy8iExLCCNaPh 1sfg== 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:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cJf1/S+diQx1SSYGBHuKdYGqDWKr/ZyIM5/Ih92oTTg=; b=blb8f28D7PC35E56slk6jxEE9VgpLZK3YZeyxGutut8J9Lj8W3gxuil4ojnGy2qtIQ pwI6shyU2LMzcQtD/Q0VOkawnaKz53J+dPd8weE7U+rbs3So/fhLOscoXybUQ5r8BbH3 CJHTAvJTIcL5N3ZiqS82ljX/rJlxdLofByMgCPzoJQd4nm+oUGXE7IXU8j4CIbeep7JW j/fTqnV2v8lHaxRu+r44o90e3BGamUgkv/iQSWOb3AsW4fblAhFNy1nQ6t++R/twYIZt DK6U6kiZnFeM3b4K88KTFDsJ29Z7wuuqtjXJFmqcGjrKcLOVS2+u1bd03P87zEdo7VHa Ty9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTIEn4Ala+2vxqyZLl+1Q/F16rznFogJhVfsFQ6Lp2CLZVM0HO+ZZ7miB1v6E5D/w== X-Received: by 10.112.158.65 with SMTP id ws1mr348012lbb.86.1455273654683; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:40:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from leviafan ([217.107.192.146]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id tv1sm1757708lbb.4.2016.02.12.02.40.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:40:54 -0800 (PST) From: Alex Kost To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:40:53 +0300 In-Reply-To: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:11:06 +0100") Message-ID: <878u2qus7e.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22628 Cc: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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 (/) Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (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 . 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). --=20 Alex From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 12 08:50:03 2016 Received: (at 22628) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2016 13:50:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37346 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aUE6l-0005VS-C4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:50:03 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58584) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aUE6k-0005Uu-H3 for 22628@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:50:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aUE6c-0006OR-8v for 22628@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:49:57 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59742) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aUE6c-0006ON-6G; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:49:54 -0500 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:50938 helo=pluto) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aUE6b-0006ht-I3; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:49:53 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Alex Kost Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> <878u2qus7e.fsf@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 24 =?utf-8?Q?Pluvi=C3=B4se?= an 224 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x3D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:49:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: <878u2qus7e.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:40:53 +0300") Message-ID: <87r3gi11j5.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22628 Cc: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: -5.1 (-----) Alex Kost 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 =E2=80=9Cupgrade=E2=80=9D, like =E2=80=98guix package -u= =E2=80=99 but only taking into account the version number (=E2=80=98guix package -u=E2=80=99 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 . I think we need a different solution for packages that have several series. For instance, we could have: (define gnupg-2.0 (package =E2=80=A6 (properties `((series . "2.0"))))) and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose version prefix is =E2=80=9C2.0=E2=80=9D. WDYT? Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 12 09:01:18 2016 Received: (at 22628) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2016 14:01:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37355 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aUEHd-0005mf-Qf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:01:17 -0500 Received: from mailrelay2.public.one.com ([91.198.169.125]:43356) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aUEHc-0005mR-04 for 22628@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:01:16 -0500 X-HalOne-Cookie: f1d53a15a8b4ea89b058b955c51c2e153fcb4d59 X-HalOne-ID: 0feac026-d191-11e5-917b-b82a72d03b9b DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=enge.fr; s=20140924; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=Q8UmbvR4MOBAjAn4R7X7ZUFZX6O21vQOGtzKxH60FoY=; b=W6QqtEfpib13ssfGxQXHFYfiU1KiJ0Qk0yxhQu+2EVuzuEhnCW26w+X93+8BJWIYdghLqZZWz5azj rKr82USZRrHilqgVD+Aj8uzod6h19ueFBerSUUqCs6trOZb1TLcurUy9QNi6BV3xZ0dJtEBRbtIG+f R71BrUoc117XEA+Y= Received: from debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr (unknown [147.210.245.180]) by smtpfilter2.public.one.com (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:01:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:01:05 +0100 From: Andreas Enge To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades Message-ID: <20160212140105.GA6289@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr> References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> <878u2qus7e.fsf@gmail.com> <87r3gi11j5.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87r3gi11j5.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22628 Cc: Alex Kost , 22628@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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 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 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 12 14:29:43 2016 Received: (at 22628) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2016 19:29:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38240 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aUJPT-0004pq-0i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:29:43 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com ([209.85.217.181]:35659) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aUJPR-0004pe-5q for 22628@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:29:41 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id bc4so50826328lbc.2 for <22628@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:29:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L8n+2dwpf9J6+IfB+IlDJtL3aQQJRx8XDKNqlcBjchs=; b=idSiE8XguawgneJ4juXFLzt9nhd4LmI7WKMnqfUsegS+ndnS/GYD3MhxLPXUFHiGHa ElA0/bD5UI7GddMSrgnS+4jaA1HOjNljfL+fOKa4WSX0E0BNOMHbH7llt76hIVdFYx2F jaJr+HPzlF8zkPi+OsIf1tBT+ARWNjxbe0NdqnJ+pcFGNsN0JOdPCjtnzxI6QDdgVv4j JPHOIKNLZQUBj0sgPNjUUjNSyaxPpHfTqOnREEMndqIeAZfo84og+wUSR22/dS6Yw4v8 D7n2ILCwdvGSnPTcujuKHjCXx/8SwgCHe8rqGFqaWFDGUeISydgnLXuPv4uJl6W/VJvw s1CA== 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:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=L8n+2dwpf9J6+IfB+IlDJtL3aQQJRx8XDKNqlcBjchs=; b=UOaZa7muXuzeZTOkc+fHyriy3SLxYbHN7KxyO7KPj1pAIl57whlLPO/qiqZnqrtc2D Z6EhFAJjfrAMqo8/1bFgCBoF5clNji2QB+RdedvI2NsdLtltBWBs/Nba3C97we6TFWxD pTohP+nBU6sYCz4KsxWeV2bCI+44lDJaOTnrjHccs7wWk7FmEuct99szlIYHiB+19ROA 2dpgfJaJNMsxScDJ1EllyTvRrN4rXsZ/JoNKKWH3Ng7mfn6B9blAap+eysBJ1WLNBBSi AW7l+WCGlR3WoyJqm68tGPETxpgadn5Oa4qdhc4gX5lHPxHXB7Fuvx5/PZfxnNiDoNgh /WIw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTEIFwoInpDmDhHzOXsBoz/7YCHzVk9EGHKsM4pSdxmoV5+YQqM6kPq7FCv8mlgcw== X-Received: by 10.112.12.2 with SMTP id u2mr1386435lbb.145.1455305375172; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:29:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from leviafan ([217.107.192.146]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i192sm2072568lfb.14.2016.02.12.11.29.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:29:34 -0800 (PST) From: Alex Kost To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> <878u2qus7e.fsf@gmail.com> <87r3gi11j5.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:29:34 +0300 In-Reply-To: <87r3gi11j5.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:49:50 +0100") Message-ID: <87si0x3ext.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22628 Cc: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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 (/) Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2016-02-12 16:49 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost 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 =E2=80=9Cupgrade=E2=80=9D, like =E2=80=98guix package = -u=E2=80=99 but only taking > into account the version number (=E2=80=98guix package -u=E2=80=99 upgrad= es 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 . > > I think we need a different solution for packages that have several > series. For instance, we could have: > > (define gnupg-2.0 > (package =E2=80=A6 > (properties `((series . "2.0"))))) > > and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose > version prefix is =E2=80=9C2.0=E2=80=9D. > > WDYT? Yeah, this looks like a great solution for such issues! --=20 Alex From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 02 12:54:50 2019 Received: (at 22628) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Dec 2019 17:54:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38893 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ibpuM-0003Z9-Cu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:54:50 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f173.google.com ([209.85.160.173]:36840) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ibpuL-0003Yx-Dw for 22628@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:54:49 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f173.google.com with SMTP id k11so636007qtm.3 for <22628@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 09:54:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UtO8mRBnnjYSl2g35HNkca1A3MK9cvio10+KtgNBEiY=; b=kOmxQZv9JW5NvqWrbM34IiswXkvUkkRjO2z719keT+4SaM6B5PKrDkMNYxUnLSD1CN oTCtsjimgJlCbEajJ5UmNG4s2tC7B0yevV0K410o8I2W4td5UhjIi7VQaQmrEGqcco8W s9SvCJdNVLyUkVFLk9ZfedtM+WfIJbHHhDsD8K7Ji+OMf0b3OcXU1Xmtop1HBTAdorml mKfr08tk/awHJhreCQD4PPagvv4dg6p+rbBq4mLVqHwUX+8E0vEpQtEYHyQTJOiOPjzT G5YTYvuZZX079IptNCkEpUag/8N9ZxeDs5rDhx3LUJTbErPOtUpeWwCEjA1s+G0R9QAi K5PQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UtO8mRBnnjYSl2g35HNkca1A3MK9cvio10+KtgNBEiY=; b=sPyhQHU0ih45LPHXIfcIwdKCo3KmAzKUGgZCmdiZgaV+HsQmDOfcN+DMDshc7c9N/E nn4mkRvvQyly2sC/rlNA593ugIdPJOqK28bLMPO6eklje/g73GIc8T34uiYdUDrPtqN0 jGVQEtNcMPUBQbJsLBI7R6/dilRt5wgWX3M36ui039WQUn+6Bw14GDMv7HsXMetYmdbn tVYKHVxxABhsbi0uaVrrDJcH3ohy/nsrcfxLN/O1FRGBcgpgG4j59Q5mWnVtczH5HIO5 rd+nd4xOolxE9jp0P4QYSBtyp5O3alTAAhBVyaEAAvsE4RFOsFLwQCKZLDoSOZz6KjaO A7SA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWJNw+NO871CXDuZHHUdIVkrXjQorcWYJ2UpHgR1E9L/7z4kBRs QHuABUKjsGI/kf9bjOIrjcdu2zSEoQh9pHKbpGnm5YGWd4A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJgoqTyuces3IV/LxqR/X2bMO/ex/P5p5HK3Pz7eMEMgV4u8mhppj/ugDgk6HmtES6BChBoIPSY+EISoXRndc= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:607:: with SMTP id d7mr612086qth.186.1575309283710; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 09:54:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: zimoun Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:54:32 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades To: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= , Alex Kost , Andreas Enge Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22628 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: -1.0 (-) 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 =E2=80=A6 (properties `((series . "2.0"))))) and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose version prefix is =E2=80=9C2.0=E2=80=9D. >> 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=3D22628#11 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 02 18:03:37 2019 Received: (at 22628) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Dec 2019 23:03:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39078 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ibujB-0003g2-87 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:03:37 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47774) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ibuj9-0003fp-NJ for 22628@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:03:36 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47125) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ibuiz-0004cL-SR; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:03:28 -0500 Received: from [41.250.185.174] (port=16371 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ibuiu-000660-7v; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:03:25 -0500 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: zimoun Subject: Re: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades References: X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 13 Frimaire an 228 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:03:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: (zimoun's message of "Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:54:32 +0100") Message-ID: <87lfruib4q.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22628 Cc: Alex Kost , 22628@debbugs.gnu.org, Andreas Enge X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: -1.8 (-) Hi! zimoun 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 =E2=80=A6 > (properties `((series . "2.0"))))) > > and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose > version prefix is =E2=80=9C2.0=E2=80=9D. >>> > > > 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=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Dec 05 12:22:20 2019 Received: (at 22628-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Dec 2019 17:22:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45114 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1icupY-0004Ny-H1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:22:20 -0500 Received: from mail-qv1-f41.google.com ([209.85.219.41]:39265) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1icupX-0004Nl-2e for 22628-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:22:19 -0500 Received: by mail-qv1-f41.google.com with SMTP id y8so1568680qvk.6 for <22628-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 09:22:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3WWVqxTatLKhBDJP93AIyrzUZ/852T1WmHhLKWKEiI8=; b=NIGPzQ1wsu9DW2/7NEU19g09DrvgLU3pl654Ocu+tUQxaR0tTDa1CfTvqgJyFgULYT vfiqV2hxTo60JNyXYTZl1/Nuf+jBr4VswTACzTsgMT9JsNfZ7GJXpEcyeUWzTPBWYQZE F/uN7HhtFQdOUDu0ZQHIkp0sBJpM+R+DpISfDb5HAw1CTTuprsJ98AeIGzF59cFuzEje 74tykqN3h9RVp405qLOt9+MkT2zqiPuF9BUP+zLufzezIEHrwNV9QwKUPkUOTW45wr+z D1OiASMlvMWGfSivYOpolLzE4o67CyFAKwQHnWUrDgMP071sGEGTxR8vKqTQ6PlcjWM3 tN6g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=3WWVqxTatLKhBDJP93AIyrzUZ/852T1WmHhLKWKEiI8=; b=IOnnpjdp+ULFrft94NCUTLTutc3kMpYOjEyXBsjcEYrjf4rCfpjWPoeoSLK6d2Y6F8 jr9ui3joDgYzOJydJj7YwvISQjxmzypQffrm+xKFdIsZV/PDQ6UuB2HgGzCijil+or9J rL0DYBH8Zt06ChVr8bcBj84HwSxfy0w3UBLS3vC5lXfcwloHEiXkN0FjcqRcwzjjM6qW S3Qn1VZbguw7ticgoW8D2/p6ukSVlcCqypW0KC/3HzimtWAZSXaQVvqO1+zbIJO2DLA9 zJYpgiEs1V3nIdt647HHr1B1mPgK395I085T6QSMC+g1IfcPWvPInlWDCSr8eF/RZIqt epHw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVEMccW7gwF2DALY9IzRBWgAHJ/+D+t/MmVbfYCf5Rx5Wu4yEAu /cCUaRUrtCLSBUyvHkkwAiFNMCyuB23WhVYj8Arigg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz1KZq8cL+XyD3jQqNlM81odMS67O9TmRA5YWbwBn8NVjuhKXx4/IzZ4bQx5CDFzaccKFB6D42OvR/VphqDqaQ= X-Received: by 2002:ad4:46ce:: with SMTP id g14mr8564624qvw.67.1575566533357; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 09:22:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87lfruib4q.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <87lfruib4q.fsf@gnu.org> From: zimoun Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:22:02 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades To: 22628-done@debbugs.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22628-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: -1.0 (-) Dear, Let the future speaks. :-) Closing and keeping in mind this kind of feature. All the best, simon From unknown Tue Aug 19 23:11:25 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 12:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator