Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot

From: Philip Kaludercic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:44:20 +0000

Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

>> From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
>> Cc: Philip Kaludercic <[email-masked]>,  [email-masked],
>>   [email-masked],  Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]>
>> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:44:22 -0400
>> 
>> > Thanks.  I've just tested 'M-x package-update-all' with my patch.  It
>> > updates the built-in and the manually installed packages that can be
>> > updated.  It _doesn't_ install any packages that weren't installed yet,
>> > of course.
>> 
>> Hmm... it might make sense to treat builtins specially in this respect.
>> Of course, maybe it's OK, but for some reason I feel a bit uncomfortable
>> with the idea that `M-x package-update-all` would update all the
>> `:core` packages.
>> 
>> I'm not sure why, admittedly, but I think it comes down to the fact that
>> the first upgrade of a `:core` package from GNU ELPA feels to me more
>> like an "install" than an "upgrade".
>
> Which means my proposal of adding a new command
> package-update-core-package makes more and more sense: 

I am not sure that "core package" is necessarily a term or concept that
users would be familiar with.  Or at least I have seen users confused
about the concept online, not realising that a core package can be
updated via ELPA.

How about something along the lines of `package-update-from-built-in'?

>                                                        we will
> probably need to handle such packages specially for any number of
> reasons, more so as we go with our plan to have them only on ELPA and
> "bundle" them when the release is tarred.  

Could you elaborate on this plan.  Or perhaps I just lack the background
to see how these issues are related?

>                                            So having such a command
> now will be a good investment for the future.
>
> Philip, if this makes sense, would you please add such a command on
> the emacs-29 branch?  If the exact purpose and effects of the command
> are not clear yet, let's talk about it and finalize that.

Can do.  This would prompt the user for a core package that hasn't been
installed from ELPA yet, and would make sure the package instead of the
core code is loaded?  If there is no difference in version between the
ELPA and the core package, should we say anything?

> Thanks.