From unknown Wed Aug 20 01:20:24 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades Resent-From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:12:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 22628 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Alex Kost X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-guix@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.145518188827396 (code B ref -1); Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:12:01 +0000 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?=) 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-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 unknown Wed Aug 20 01:20:24 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades Resent-From: Alex Kost Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:42:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22628 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Cc: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 22628-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22628.145527366229943 (code B ref 22628); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:42:02 +0000 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 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-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 unknown Wed Aug 20 01:20:24 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades Resent-From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:51:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22628 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Alex Kost Cc: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 22628-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22628.145528500321174 (code B ref 22628); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:51:02 +0000 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?=) 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-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 unknown Wed Aug 20 01:20:24 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades Resent-From: Andreas Enge Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:02:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22628 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: Alex Kost , 22628@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 22628-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22628.145528567822241 (code B ref 22628); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:02:01 +0000 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 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-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 unknown Wed Aug 20 01:20:24 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades Resent-From: Alex Kost Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:30:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22628 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Cc: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 22628-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22628.145530538318595 (code B ref 22628); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:30:03 +0000 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 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-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 unknown Wed Aug 20 01:20:24 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#22628: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> Resent-From: zimoun Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 17:55:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22628 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Alex Kost , Andreas Enge Received: via spool by 22628-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22628.157530929013715 (code B ref 22628); Mon, 02 Dec 2019 17:55:02 +0000 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) 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 unknown Wed Aug 20 01:20:24 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#22628: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 23:04:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22628 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: zimoun Cc: Alex Kost , 22628@debbugs.gnu.org, Andreas Enge Received: via spool by 22628-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22628.157532781714143 (code B ref 22628); Mon, 02 Dec 2019 23:04:02 +0000 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= 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-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 unknown Wed Aug 20 01:20:24 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#22628: closed (Re: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades) Message-ID: References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 22628 X-Gnu-PR-Package: guix Reply-To: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 17:23:02 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1575566582-16938-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1575566582-16938-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades which was filed against the guix package, has been closed. The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. If you require more details, please reply to 22628@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 22628: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D22628 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1575566582-16938-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 ------------=_1575566582-16938-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. ------------=_1575566582-16938-1--