GNU bug report logs - #60418
[PATCH] Add :vc keyword to use-package

Previous Next

Full log

Message #139 received at 60418 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: soliditsallgood <at> mailbox.org, felician.nemeth <at> gmail.com,
 60418 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stefankangas <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#60418: [PATCH] Add :vc keyword to use-package
Date: Sat, 06 May 2023 18:50:02 +0000

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
>> Cc: soliditsallgood <at> mailbox.org,  60418 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>>   felician.nemeth <at> gmail.com,  stefankangas <at> gmail.com
>> Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 17:15:42 +0000
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> No, the commit of the latest release is interpreted the same way as
>> >> elpa-admin.el does, namely the last revision that modified the "Version"
>> >> header.  If no such commit can be found, then a message is printed out
>> >> and the installation continues under the assumption that the package is
>> >> using a rolling-release model.
>> >
>> > I thought package-vc-install is used (or at least can be used) to
>> > fetch the latest HEAD from the upstream repository?  I even thought
>> > this was its main raison d'être?
>> >
>> > If that's not true, does it mean we have no means for package users to
>> > track the latest development code of a package?
>> 
>> This is true, for package-vc-install, but the idea was not do this for
>> the :vc keyword to use-package.
>
> But I wrote the above as a comment to a patch to package-vc.el, not to
> use-package.  So why use-package is relevant here?

Because this patch is related to use-package, and a keyword that would
allow for use-package to invoke package-vc-install?

>> My understanding is that the main
>> interest here is to install packages that are not available via package
>> archives.  And as use-package is a popular means of bootstrapping a
>> configuration, it seems the right approach to use the commit of the
>> latest revision, instead of just any commit to avoid instability.
>
> My understanding is that the :rev keyword allows to use any value that
> is acceptable to package-vc-install.  

Right, and what is acceptable to package-vc-install is what is
transitively acceptable to `vc-clone'/`vc-retrieve-tag'.

>                                       I understand that in most cases
> users will want to install the latest, 

I don't know if that is the case.  I might be wrong that the revision of
the latest release is a good default?  Tony, do you think we should add
a user-option to regulate this behaviour.

>                                        but once we decided to support
> :rev, we must allow any valid value there.  Right?

Yes.

>>    By default, this function installs the last revision of the
>>    package available from its repository.  If REV is a string, it
>>    describes the revision to install, as interpreted by the VC
>>    backend.  The special value `:last-release' (interactively, the
>>    prefix argument), will use the commit of the latest release, if
>>    it exists.  The latest revision is determined by the latest
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "last release", not "latest revision": you are explaining what the
> previous sentence said.

Whoops, of course.

>>    revision to modify the \"Version\" header of the main file.
>> 
>> But I couldn't come up with an elegant way to avoid the passive voice in
>> the last sentence.
>
> Here's one way:
>
>   The last release is the latest revision which changed the
>   \"Version:\" header of the package's main Lisp file.

Yes, sounds good.  Will apply this change.

Previous Next

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