From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:01:44 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#29614 <29614@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#29614 <29614@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 25.2; package.el upgrade problem Reply-To: bug#29614 <29614@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 12:01:44 +0000 retitle 29614 25.2; package.el upgrade problem reassign 29614 emacs submitter 29614 Live System User severity 29614 minor tag 29614 moreinfo thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Dec 08 09:34:30 2017 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2017 14:34:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51548 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eNJjS-0000By-94 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:34:30 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54319) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eNJjQ-0000Bm-Hs for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:34:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNJjJ-0000mG-TG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:34:23 -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,FREEMAIL_FROM, T_DKIM_INVALID,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:56160) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNJjJ-0000m0-Qv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:34:21 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45271) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNJjI-0002Pg-4e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:34:21 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNJjE-0000hT-Sp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:34:20 -0500 Received: from omr-m020e.mx.aol.com ([204.29.186.20]:48016) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNJjE-0000gr-Mc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:34:16 -0500 Received: from mtaout-aab01.mx.aol.com (mtaout-aab01.mx.aol.com [172.26.126.205]) by omr-m020e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 3B2CD380004D for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:34:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-16-70-190.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [73.16.70.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-aab01.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 3E42738000087 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:34:14 -0500 (EST) From: Live System User To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 25.2; package.el upgrade problem Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:34:12 -0500 Message-ID: <87wp1xs2zf.fsf@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20150623; t=1512743654; bh=9MY5FrGewBjQnONlDyADuJiLTgVURVURhKuq7SVXsMw=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mSnSkCtyTlpGiRprfGNdWvp4UeD83i2wxw0fJA1APargX7YGmrr/+95f0iHJnHp8y 6ZLN99DPkTEefRZmHOjVgN6y/fpSZECjOaCcWxxlB1bYLCSyBKgDu9ShlgH3urYWqH 8whhV4yX7z13XZwuHRuOYI727eg7emjB6kjKMtzU= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1a7ecd5a2aa2e61919 X-AOL-IP: 73.16.70.190 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit 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: -4.0 (----) Hi, I ran into the following problem when using package.el to upgrade my installed packages to the latest available versions: 1. M-x package-list-packages 2. U `package-menu-mark-upgrades' A message displaying in the echo-area that 4 packages are marked to be upgraded -- 3 from Gnu Elpa and 1 from Melpa 3. x `package-menu-execute' The upgrades comenced starting with the one from Melpa. After that one finished, I got the following message in the echo-area: elpa.gnu.org/443 Name or service not known I try "x" `package-menu-execute' again and get the same "elpa.gnu.org/443 Name or service not known" message. Must be a transient error at elpa.gnu.org because I can "ping" it: PING elpa.gnu.org (208.118.235.89) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from elpa.gnu.org (208.118.235.89): icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=34.5 ms I'll exit out of package.el's menu and try again later... 4. q `quit-window I look at my ~/.emacs.d/elpa and I see two versions of the Melpa package that I just upgraded -- the old/obsoleted one and the newly upgraded one. Ordinarily, the obsoleted ome is removed at the conclusion of an (successful) upgrade. But since this upgrade wasn't completely successful -- the 3 Gnu Elpa packages failed to be upgraded even though the Melpa one was successfully upgraded -- I'm guessing that's why the obsoleted one wasn't removed. Some time has passed and I try to upgrade my packages again. 5. M-x package-list-packages 6. U `package-menu-mark-upgrades' Now only 3 packages are marked to be upgraded, all from Gnu Elpa, as expected. 7. x `package-menu-execute' This time the upgrades are successful for the Gnu Elpa packages and the obsolete Gnu Elpa packages are removed. However, the obsolete Melpa package remains. How does one deal with this situation with an unwanted obsolete package? Will it remain until a newer version of the package in the future obsoletes today's current version and then remove both/all obsoleted versions? Or will only the previous obsolete version be removed leaving any other ancestor? [I can see that if package.el supports "pinning" a specific version of a package so that it wont be removed might make an automatic removal of obsoleted previous package's ancestor problematic to guard against.] So does this now become a manual removal process in this reported situation? If so, then are there steps to do this within package;el (besides the obvious remove the package compeletely to get rid of ALL versions of the package -- both lastest and ancestors -- and then reinstall the package)? Or will one have to just resort to deleting the package directory of the obsoleted version of the package manually? Thanks. In GNU Emacs 25.2.1 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.20.10) of 2017-05-02 built on buildvm-17.phx2.fedoraproject.org Windowing system distributor 'Fedora Project', version 11.0.11803000 Configured using: 'configure --build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --disable-dependency-tracking --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib64 --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/var/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --with-dbus --with-gif --with-jpeg --with-png --with-rsvg --with-tiff --with-xft --with-xpm --with-x-toolkit=gtk3 --with-gpm=no --with-xwidgets --with-modules build_alias=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu host_alias=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu 'CFLAGS=-DMAIL_USE_LOCKF -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic' LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,relro PKG_CONFIG_PATH=:/usr/lib64/pkgconfig:/usr/share/pkgconfig' Configured features: XPM JPEG TIFF GIF PNG RSVG IMAGEMAGICK SOUND DBUS GCONF GSETTINGS NOTIFY ACL LIBSELINUX GNUTLS LIBXML2 FREETYPE M17N_FLT LIBOTF XFT ZLIB TOOLKIT_SCROLL_BARS GTK3 X11 MODULES XWIDGETS Important settings: value of $LANG: en_US.UTF-8 value of $XMODIFIERS: @im=ibus locale-coding-system: utf-8-unix Major mode: Fundamental Minor modes in effect: tooltip-mode: t global-eldoc-mode: t electric-indent-mode: t mouse-wheel-mode: t tool-bar-mode: t menu-bar-mode: t file-name-shadow-mode: t global-font-lock-mode: t blink-cursor-mode: t auto-composition-mode: t auto-encryption-mode: t auto-compression-mode: t line-number-mode: t transient-mark-mode: t Recent messages: funcall-interactively: End of buffer Type C-x 1 to delete the help window. funcall-interactively: Beginning of buffer [10 times] funcall-interactively: Text is read-only [2 times] Making completion list... Load-path shadows: None found. Features: (shadow emacsbug eieio-opt speedbar sb-image ezimage dframe find-func pp thingatpt mailalias smtpmail sendmail debug sort gnus-cite smiley ansi-color mail-extr gnus-async gnus-bcklg qp gnus-ml disp-table cursor-sensor nndraft nnmh nndoc mm-archive jka-compr timezone url-http url-gw url-cache url-auth url-handlers utf-7 rfc2104 nnfolder network-stream nsm starttls gnus-agent gnus-srvr gnus-score score-mode nnvirtual gnus-msg nntp gnus-cache epa-file epa derived nnreddit mm-url url url-proxy url-privacy url-expand url-methods url-history url-cookie url-domsuf url-util url-parse auth-source cl-seq eieio eieio-core cl-macs url-vars json map seq byte-opt bytecomp byte-compile cl-extra cconv gnus-art mm-uu mml2015 mm-view mml-smime smime dig mailcap cl gv sieve sieve-mode sieve-manage nnir gnus-sum gnus-group gnus-undo gnus-start gnus-cloud nnimap nnmail mail-source tls gnutls utf7 netrc parse-time gnus-spec gnus-int gnus-range message dired format-spec rfc822 mml mml-sec password-cache epg epg-config mm-decode mm-bodies mm-encode mail-parse rfc2231 rfc2047 rfc2045 ietf-drums mailabbrev gmm-utils mailheader gnus-win gnus gnus-ems wid-edit nnoo nnheader gnus-util mm-util help-fns help-mode easymenu cl-loaddefs pcase cl-lib mail-prsvr mail-utils misearch multi-isearch time-date mule-util tooltip eldoc electric uniquify ediff-hook vc-hooks lisp-float-type mwheel x-win term/common-win x-dnd tool-bar dnd fontset image regexp-opt fringe tabulated-list newcomment elisp-mode lisp-mode prog-mode register page menu-bar rfn-eshadow timer select scroll-bar mouse jit-lock font-lock syntax facemenu font-core frame cl-generic cham georgian utf-8-lang misc-lang vietnamese tibetan thai tai-viet lao korean japanese eucjp-ms cp51932 hebrew greek romanian slovak czech european ethiopic indian cyrillic chinese charscript case-table epa-hook jka-cmpr-hook help simple abbrev minibuffer cl-preloaded nadvice loaddefs button faces cus-face macroexp files text-properties overlay sha1 md5 base64 format env code-pages mule custom widget hashtable-print-readable backquote dbusbind inotify dynamic-setting system-font-setting font-render-setting xwidget-internal move-toolbar gtk x-toolkit x multi-tty make-network-process emacs) Memory information: ((conses 16 217442 50107) (symbols 48 31609 420) (miscs 40 142 569) (strings 32 58115 16037) (string-bytes 1 1783839) (vectors 16 27769) (vector-slots 8 862483 53634) (floats 8 418 1607) (intervals 56 525 320) (buffers 976 47) (heap 1024 60839 44510)) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Dec 12 06:25:09 2020 Received: (at 29614) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Dec 2020 11:25:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44050 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ko31R-0000gW-G1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 06:25:09 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:45784) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ko31P-0000du-Md for 29614@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 06:25:08 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=bonXbiW3yjhGGNIHlh1dGxie4JlGshX/q4MZ8vyCoTo=; b=sfHEjaGFGyRHmpduThhKDf52M3 8tyGF+XzgWVpCubCVSpNFGdDRLGAFR4pURmEhqzOkaxmwE3AjHtg0i9wGU2FcvSJ9SxS7KKLAFmj1 lRi6INgc1bMyQqp7rb18ClpIdcanOC8oDHtm1y7k4Tj+FDUT9b8n1jgQjgWOArXquZHk=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ko31F-0004yK-7t; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 12:25:02 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Live System User Subject: Re: bug#29614: 25.2; package.el upgrade problem References: <87wp1xs2zf.fsf@aol.com> X-Now-Playing: Shopping's _All Or Nothing_: "Body Clock" Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 12:24:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87wp1xs2zf.fsf@aol.com> (Live System User's message of "Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:34:12 -0500") Message-ID: <874kkr6zcn.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Live System User writes: > 7. x `package-menu-execute' > This time the upgrades are successful for the Gnu Elpa packages and > the obsolete Gnu Elpa packages are removed. > > However, the obsolete Melpa package remains. > > H [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 29614 Cc: 29614@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: -1.0 (-) Live System User writes: > 7. x `package-menu-execute' > This time the upgrades are successful for the Gnu Elpa packages and > the obsolete Gnu Elpa packages are removed. > > However, the obsolete Melpa package remains. > > How does one deal with this situation with an unwanted obsolete > package? (This bug report unfortunately didn't get any response at the time.) If I've reading this bug report correctly, this was the point of the matter? If so, the answer is "use the `~' command to mark obsolete packages for deletion". Does this answer your question, or was there something else in this bug report that needs a response? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Dec 12 06:25:14 2020 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Dec 2020 11:25:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44053 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ko31V-0000ih-Uw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 06:25:14 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:45798) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ko31U-0000eh-4m for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 06:25:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Subject:From:To:Message-Id:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=vVPMahXrSg7GLrW8xkb77/P29IsZZ4tJj6rkYKLU4Qs=; b=mO+u/3coKNd3lhc2/YY8GTuvUU hs0nTj1cW+aLuUepsMXjG3KaHOg0Cc9SkpSWagBrv8BieRkGUVx5/I6uQsWRMinNUH/QBwwNvQjsl BBfx6zJIOQULrM87vLkzzLi9pa2iyNw4cpr/CtgvtkNzVZRDOmloS4SWmGKvCs9gXeRk=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ko31M-0004yU-Ju for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 12:25:06 +0100 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 12:25:03 +0100 Message-Id: <87360b6zcg.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #29614 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 29614 + moreinfo quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control 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 (-) tags 29614 + moreinfo quit From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 22 13:32:09 2021 Received: (at 29614) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jan 2021 18:32:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33040 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l31E8-0007pO-VN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:32:09 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:43864) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l31E6-0007jZ-FM for 29614@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:32:07 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Y2wFNozOEZUygIhDrmGdRVad+pge6td8gNDWtR1qDIY=; b=jljt7Yib7SjE7M1jdDh7Kf7A8p 66buUMgoDeB/vgmcomwQy/CGMwptw4miXSONi0KReC9fjURLTOvtdP2KxQZkqlO1eYxpU0O3AfJWW 2jP2vEtpScAZ330hlBbW2SwYCa8et1GFh+bnPVYLD15kCrgFsxRXMcJbFNKP78g1bYQA=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l31Dy-0003vx-DZ; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 19:32:00 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Live System User Subject: Re: bug#29614: 25.2; package.el upgrade problem References: <87wp1xs2zf.fsf@aol.com> <874kkr6zcn.fsf@gnus.org> X-Now-Playing: Hilt's _Get Stuck_: "No Crak On Junk St." Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 19:31:57 +0100 In-Reply-To: <874kkr6zcn.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sat, 12 Dec 2020 12:24:56 +0100") Message-ID: <87im7ozuua.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > If I've reading this bug report correctly, this was the point of the > matter? If so, the answer is "use the `~' command to mark obsolete > packages for deletion". > > Does this answer your question [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 29614 Cc: 29614@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: -1.0 (-) Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > If I've reading this bug report correctly, this was the point of the > matter? If so, the answer is "use the `~' command to mark obsolete > packages for deletion". > > Does this answer your question, or was there something else in this bug > report that needs a response? More information was requested, but no response was given within a month, so I'm closing this bug report. If the problem still exists, please respond to this email and we'll reopen the bug report. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 22 13:32:15 2021 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jan 2021 18:32:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33043 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l31EF-0007tZ-9C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:32:15 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:43900) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l31ED-0007pD-SV for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:32:14 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Subject:From:To:Message-Id:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=+qva9JA9nfeL21LLx4XrAwLJrjz/kZgCb67XdpsswL0=; b=h96AvtqcKcAgaPqljSa8sf+IEo ogUcBVfocq6ny2xlDI717Yh5MnDvKZUI6G6gKAdFEN1vzbmLOA1LsKtlbcPf4qUupxg9un9dAQb4j df1TTzdup34bfiyuD8sQzA5tBhL0pRbo7gbI2d8eQ6F02Y+JAR5e77770sGl5grntVGM=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l31E5-0003w8-D1 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 19:32:08 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 19:32:04 +0100 Message-Id: <87h7n8zuu3.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #29614 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: close 29614 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control 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 (-) close 29614 quit From unknown Sat Jun 21 05:01:44 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:24:05 +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