From unknown Fri Jun 20 07:16:30 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#62720 <62720@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#62720 <62720@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Reply-To: bug#62720 <62720@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 14:16:30 +0000 retitle 62720 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot reassign 62720 emacs submitter 62720 Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora severity 62720 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 07 18:10:50 2023 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Apr 2023 22:10:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57352 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pkuID-0001Ak-VR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2023 18:10:50 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:36888) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pkuIC-0001Ac-2y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2023 18:10:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pkuIA-00056j-Oe for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2023 18:10:47 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pkuI8-000635-VD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2023 18:10:46 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id l15-20020a05600c4f0f00b003ef6d684102so22359166wmq.3 for ; Fri, 07 Apr 2023 15:10:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680905441; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=AC3dnhJZyj6RD1oxYqDucJfOLKwohcygHJLPoFAB8n8=; b=czcsQyly9euJd95si4e3KP4tsMoDFdYYg2vEf4ZcTLqcqNpPsl39AN4jBu6+2964Gr MInmZ8VKPk7ZJQnV2Osk/od8GGgfxjdBdWwMrbLIUHR8Jo8guNLWv8dPiQzwfR56dHux g52QYlhHVGnhVRyVjwd0ka98eZqlq+OiD+4KbDtI3jpYc5KxJE8iWiJz3dAwlKF95wuL Gru1V1tx70eQ4xWI1DvEIO8o79ShcOH88YGRUWCRIRLpKLkjMddbR2N7PQ5VUa/VjV/d 5i1mQn95FerZEWg3BUd7PyBt4H0DWYGxKtw5KPrC6iGZKnUuP1tRf3n1uWbi5fpQyfZn eMdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680905441; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=AC3dnhJZyj6RD1oxYqDucJfOLKwohcygHJLPoFAB8n8=; b=VxX6rXU3FJjpRz5beu2K3R+bTyp/OaOgcGJy61RuYL4j/2Hzzel/I8e1cG7XsunDl5 wC5MRouujAa8G0VqiMWAdk294zQad13jG5gANXH2Hj25TwFy1Y4riKndHIpc25/AA5C/ He9Jl2kSQXT1V8oLwfCWILts39kyAkgw5MwSnskPlOuJyZfGNAME6AKA4IYr8UhMOB4r CuAciv9PRpMDQrOZjjsPkaBYFCMsul7BzxvRzfx5X6cAnWAJoUsriVvnKk6kymD52/TQ PVh2Prwz56MBh4DykCwyO2SDzs4fPH5nLaHBa6N6/Qkbw+TH85KoEo8b4W83S9gCDy0E mN5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9e0NzklFyemzxmyf2O/BNvsQ4juK8doqnMI6+xF64nDgZBcj7er TWE2B+Bln/raZDtrGYtqjstwmsaLeps= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aAzgdnJJltaWCNSrociRXXkUi2WizSTnmjAQX8/miHFPXN/hM7G6rfZwD5Z0ABQ2wE6ZN8vA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:21d6:b0:3eb:1432:a78c with SMTP id x22-20020a05600c21d600b003eb1432a78cmr2239982wmj.37.1680905441400; Fri, 07 Apr 2023 15:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.72.106]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i42-20020a05600c4b2a00b003f0321c22basm9451095wmp.12.2023.04.07.15.10.40 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 07 Apr 2023 15:10:40 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot X-Debbugs-CC: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2023 23:12:43 +0100 Message-ID: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::333; envelope-from=joaotavora@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm1-x333.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) 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: -2.3 (--) Hello, I've been meaning to report this for some time. I really think this should be fixed in Emacs 29 before it ships. src/emacs -Q # Emacs 29 M-x package-install RET eglot RET Echoes "No match", even though eglot 1.14 is available from GNU ELPA. That's because Eglot is a :core ELPA package and it's already in Emacs 29, so package.el thinks there is nothing to install. Evaluating (package-install 'eglot) also doesn't work. Errors with "'eglot' is already installed" In Emacs 28, both these alternatives work as expected (because Eglot isn't a :core package there). It's not impossible to upgrade in Emacs 29, of course. The only way I know is to M-x package-list-packages, find Eglot 1.14 in the list, mark it with 'i' and confirm installation with 'x'. But it is very awkward. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 07 21:04:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 01:04:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57459 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pkx01-0005z8-0J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2023 21:04:13 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:61548) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pkwzz-0005yw-HR for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2023 21:04:12 -0400 Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D6A53442EE5; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 21:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A6F15442EDD; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 21:04:04 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1680915844; bh=aHmXPbmBfI9DVIGjGqcEKcMtWZbE6iKFk4RclFIRRjg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=S77LUz9FDrQSjpAuoX1wL8aJbZtV+waY/deTGAHamwbNHCHBE2juK7roPk8azKb3n F97QBMLkuTWpkAzV/LOtivtewSXPQ1toCpOILS/hUQMaCTQDECfELPLxhDoPFHPrnr SCmpHnF8DshZ4bQyon9A011fGXacKTd1SmGkTDqtMXpidHEfALRAbrc54B4pzijud4 STC8UPpjatFLaddK0F2S5nBr+oT70QfgLdGjvAxuBitSKYewuSac1e7Sdm3LGFjRF2 0cFgrFXVA0bk2isKZD3xCNF/lcpZjEw5gBvtiX/FD3zpB8/MCOjzTN6+GFPZ3ruiFP S9V8Zni+YPBkg== Received: from alfajor (unknown [45.72.217.176]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30CE71231AC; Fri, 7 Apr 2023 21:04:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vo?= =?windows-1252?Q?ra=22's?= message of "Fri, 07 Apr 2023 23:12:43 +0100") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2023 21:03:56 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.038 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@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: -3.3 (---) > It's not impossible to upgrade in Emacs 29, of course. The only way I > know is to M-x package-list-packages, find Eglot 1.14 in the list, mark > it with 'i' and confirm installation with 'x'. But it is very awkward. Maybe we should add a `package-upgrade` command? Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 03:09:49 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 07:09:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57569 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl2hp-0007y7-40 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 03:09:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:48148) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl2hl-0007xq-Vh for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 03:09:47 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pl2hf-00041m-Si; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 03:09:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=Eex+rIgI3ljh01vJFdUNOZRFOlmt6rIWO+4gNobtHQU=; b=MiLj3rXDX5oiLLOQgKM3 rygZIgMsU9Q6VG+4LGfXYaWFtKhTRRPHub3OZGBK1AZYxhtDtTxdp47Uk2gg/IqjTockPEX86DfN3 zm5xn4XHIQFzx0lZtempaOn/tCb+tg/itVpWE7wIFDu7WgS5kW4jpVPR8JShXE0TybGIpkyj4hhi8 2g5rcxHN4Fv9zOLcbP6ewugq/9QfRQ1+gqleacpXQpPnjfeoFbo9z9ACg6SiGBfiGMjU7IiinHkJt K8o86mefE6+XNJc/ebetTnxNEifT0LYOrMJGxtoNCnIg7wSiatQIaNkPV7P7TNzNYSfyf6xIMVDaa CSoQTQWwE2zZaQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pl2he-0005B3-Rd; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 03:09:39 -0400 Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2023 10:10:12 +0300 Message-Id: <835ya6onmz.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28g?= =?utf-8?B?VMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Fri, 07 Apr 2023 23:12:43 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: João Távora > Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2023 23:12:43 +0100 > > I've been meaning to report this for some time. I really think this > should be fixed in Emacs 29 before it ships. > > src/emacs -Q # Emacs 29 > > M-x package-install RET eglot RET > > Echoes "No match", even though eglot 1.14 is available from GNU ELPA. > That's because Eglot is a :core ELPA package and it's already in Emacs > 29, so package.el thinks there is nothing to install. Is :core new in Emacs 29? If not, then this problem is not new: it existed earlier for every :core package in ELPA, it just didn't exist for Eglot. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 05:10:09 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 09:10:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57713 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl4aG-0005N7-DH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 05:10:08 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f41.google.com ([209.85.160.41]:41926) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl4aD-0005MW-R0 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 05:10:06 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-17fcc07d6c4so33904328fac.8 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 02:10:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680945000; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mNpKzJPAxYC/K3cTyBWWJ+ECz8lwroB630Kr8KP67fA=; b=LmK2EGRAJ98kjhEaDKzZcUDLn3wTLDDPFdNY0k3YT4o03NmrQd3DOnsg4Lc9oUD6Yt XQRJuUzYV40qiYQAvrn+KEScPRFP83/4C6nlwRUzj9DquKpYmkMFdb3xYxjwb3FkGPbZ eEqdxf9fxRJzW5rV08IGEuXCG0Hq11TEFdmXTZh7qQXLVGCaPWMxjmss9r4p7ziWzInb +bGLqB7zQXbdf1H6GXu43/1rwFnXEgW1F4fi4f4cTkhjcesk0j7DZYOIBzPo+YYP/J/F frU/iE3IM3xTItFbH1tECMykmei07KPoAjd6tpd064SsNnC+t2VrPoL0sZbnux9Rrmk0 AxCQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680945000; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=mNpKzJPAxYC/K3cTyBWWJ+ECz8lwroB630Kr8KP67fA=; b=ckX6Wr4NyGDph/S3nNNX9mV/J2VJb6kzWG3h9mLKCyVL+7nTHUBssNu2MKLlFiULy4 45X4eLlklB+lxKtErtPg1s6dsVxT2+Syft/HZe98q+RHjJgGu596hJWtNaXYAMllOIqs ZF9xEh2y/V0x2AFecMWHpg6puzwAl8c6vJBR4Bg2hBuHsEdNJNF27sPJRTjjcqMemY5c nbngHUK1XTAKSi6j68kp/1dkgsixlIf/OKe2ZzXWzosSkVlsnbbrPiRQ/4WNgXmqlU6A 5fijVrZ6HYEeHFn+VPCOw8mZKVLZVGo5Qk80DXiG8vDFzu3/nYoUdLUT3pwxsteXgl8J oQCQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dSjF978/uv9KI3WXYzyHbwblAip5G8vctgJ9tCCBzU0G3mpCaS N1R8L4RQAcTWy/Kr4njUNz9mfphMyyH2e+9AhGc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bEDuHJRQVEbIa1O4HyzHgMsyoNPGFIcnsbnvASxmDAJfy88m6zVAwnm+y2l4ETMsmDNZZrKqpyeRE2rLRvY1g= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:81:b0:180:1f9f:923e with SMTP id u1-20020a056871008100b001801f9f923emr2128000oaa.5.1680945000109; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 02:10:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <835ya6onmz.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <835ya6onmz.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 10:09:48 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e5c7005f8cf812e" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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 (-) --0000000000009e5c7005f8cf812e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Apr 8, 2023, 08:09 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2023 23:12:43 +0100 > > > > I've been meaning to report this for some time. I really think this > > should be fixed in Emacs 29 before it ships. > > > > src/emacs -Q # Emacs 29 > > > > M-x package-install RET eglot RET > > > > Echoes "No match", even though eglot 1.14 is available from GNU ELPA. > > That's because Eglot is a :core ELPA package and it's already in Emacs > > 29, so package.el thinks there is nothing to install. > > Is :core new in Emacs 29? If not, then this problem is not new: it > existed earlier for every :core package in ELPA, it just didn't exist > for Eglot. > Yes, it existed before. It's a bug but not a regression. But many of these :core packages were primarily used as libraries supporting other packages, not do much as user-facing, command-providing, UI-enhancing packages. >From what I've been seeing in the Eglot bug tracker there is a very significant number of people using third-party package managers to install and upgrade Eglot (straight, elpaca, ...) I always tell them to report problems sweet package-install instead of these managers, as I've seen more than my fair share of problems created by these other managers. My experience and the internal traffic reports tem me Eglot is a popular Emacs package and people are not satisfied with just any old release. If this isn't fixed, it'll be heaps of text to tell people how to upgrade. Not the end of the world, but really awkward. There is certainly code in Emacs 29 that allows upgrading Eglot or other core packages but it's buried deep in that odd workflow. If the code for a M-x package-upgrade, as Stefan suggests, is simple, then i think it should be added to emacs-29. Alternatively, there could be some kind of 'package-bugfixes' non-:core package in elpa.git that adds this new command. Asking people to install that package first is still easier than guiding then through that odd workflow. Jo=C3=A3o > --0000000000009e5c7005f8cf812e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023, 08:09 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca
> From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora <joaotavora@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2023 23:12:43 +0100
>
> I've been meaning to report this for some time.=C2=A0 I really thi= nk this
> should be fixed in Emacs 29 before it ships.
>
> src/emacs -Q # Emacs 29
>
> M-x package-install RET eglot RET
>
> Echoes "No match", even though eglot 1.14 is available from = GNU ELPA.
> That's because Eglot is a :core ELPA package and it's already = in Emacs
> 29, so package.el thinks there is nothing to install.

Is :core new in Emacs 29?=C2=A0 If not, then this problem is not new: it existed earlier for every :core package in ELPA, it just didn't exist for Eglot.

Yes, it existed before. It's a bug but not a regression. But = many of these :core packages were primarily used as libraries supporting ot= her packages, not do much as user-facing, command-providing, UI-enhancing p= ackages.=C2=A0

From what= I've been seeing in the Eglot bug tracker there is a very significant = number of people using third-party package managers to install and upgrade = Eglot (straight, elpaca, ...)

I always tell them to report problems sweet package-install instead o= f these managers, as I've seen more than my fair share of problems crea= ted by these other managers.

My experience and the internal traffic reports tem me Eglot is a popul= ar Emacs package and people are not satisfied with just any old release. If= this isn't fixed, it'll be heaps of text to tell people how to upg= rade. Not the end of the world, but really awkward.
=
There is certainly code in Emacs 29 that allows= upgrading Eglot or other core packages but it's buried deep in that od= d workflow. If the code for a M-x package-upgrade, as Stefan suggests, is s= imple, then i think it should be added to emacs-29.
=
Alternatively, there could be some kind of '= ;package-bugfixes' non-:core package in elpa.git that adds this new com= mand. Asking people to install that package first is still easier than guid= ing then through that odd workflow.

Jo=C3=A3o
--0000000000009e5c7005f8cf812e-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 06:43:35 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 10:43:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57789 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl62g-00082g-NH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 06:43:34 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:39687) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl62f-00082T-35 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 06:43:33 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46ED324014C for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 12:43:27 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1680950607; bh=0eoD/znpK96tLwTNpi57mFjXiiKLrRKLkiYVJ9IDrt4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=k+QXe1ck+TcLpaD62gTREmXqLU2Sm5dvtJgbXWVXmq/GBcrWjSmngFgfvY44A2lnm kS4fJllpozZWAPiTCo0uYFtPdA8druvMHTAzSIZnY0i12jpNX4IgzeqwtyXZUXpkhb a3kccVdr/vIXHQMemMbt9sXI330HbayAA1V91p8hXv9wXVi7hgFq2cXlIGw0XdHsTu MO0k5AZySw0wKUg906zyILlehsgrl0iGCJGJcwYtV023TYsMfsjNuOnqd4t67lFzvK hhuXI0swFcRynBjhV7ELMDQ80wdC5P7Cba6xv8UWr04VlKgUol4Elhr1KB/3hp2OSY Y3lb8S1dXq74w== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PtsKB19Xkz9rxL; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 12:43:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 07 Apr 2023 21:03:56 -0400") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2023 10:43:25 +0000 Message-ID: <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= 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: -3.3 (---) Stefan Monnier writes: >> It's not impossible to upgrade in Emacs 29, of course. The only way I >> know is to M-x package-list-packages, find Eglot 1.14 in the list, mark >> it with 'i' and confirm installation with 'x'. But it is very awkward. > > Maybe we should add a `package-upgrade` command? Just for :core packages or how would this differ from package-update? -- Philip Kaludercic From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 06:47:00 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 10:47:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57793 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl660-000889-Ax for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 06:47:00 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f43.google.com ([209.85.160.43]:40505) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl65y-00087v-NP for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 06:46:59 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1843495182eso345190fac.7 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 03:46:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680950813; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=LdHnNTh7m4GEIjTsv6NXJzSd2i7nNaDd1hlqfMsIc7Y=; b=aGoB0bcyAHf3MoRilQchqfpwxUp0Hrs+vr8hJhr0sdJj3JZXWgsTbE4xDN+sjwQo3Q QLI/o3/2vdUmaPoPcv9+HQObCVxf2s66mu/IjMpk0ZdiQ1BrSxuHuYkMOOaW0LBEz4jJ zO6IBtIuuaDZe2yvEqYvGpP/larJaBX8WL8bksWPehDgtoGkuE9zfq0Vk1bBw2b4/a0W 0uhbAhJBHbUv2b4K4LyGQ2cIfP7YZVCZt44AIsdGNYtYTYZxF5B4sUgOlrq3Gpn9qUwY TGGsx6NaAPPc8U6hgB01+NwAgZfGTnlt7ZkhwW+mt1s78BPY7cF4ywPNqq/0orl1KyIJ 4+Cw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680950813; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LdHnNTh7m4GEIjTsv6NXJzSd2i7nNaDd1hlqfMsIc7Y=; b=TjJ29jTPJLQxMsy8ut+ibHRZly8iTij2bXxP4nDYvIplVOIL+jzHR0OJG/ZX1GxAIt jBE63ypmxvW1ZnmP6pGX0kRZAbqAoyjKgpvNknEcl4PaYrnMIfE5BHJ/bKHyN60HV8dZ Imv3apwNzclH/uUNrJ6ss0xO9tD34yPpdEo0G9IvU+KZDXRmqdLkDH+bFUtnzCDP6Oss 4uYVDBl/fUm/fcpQtaRmWOS5QOPlwCtJiHHGZaqIY4PxVTHYgDEg3G5ZdjDb07NQerXV HUl4TuQEJoPx6K40q2lltQpKOxjCZ37IKgi9RnZWILo6uIC+V9AH8thLmdYwZwB2El6f EfOA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eZokl42AUNfO7LbVLGxgqubKETC0LFpxkKlbKP5by043+w1i6m Tmah4zzu0K1dsJj17a5/mbg2nfd9VTcCoJNkrGg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350a44SkF7QileAkXTr9tGYrRbrHtWVtuciHdI27Kd8eLW1uk3hkB8AUHwkCcUOXqBVPXKEL6HxEKsvq9cOYfkLk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:ac27:b0:184:2097:e64f with SMTP id kw39-20020a056870ac2700b001842097e64fmr1350496oab.5.1680950812829; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 03:46:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> In-Reply-To: <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 11:48:45 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Philip Kaludercic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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 (-) On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 11:43=E2=80=AFAM Philip Kaludercic wrote: > > Stefan Monnier writes: > > >> It's not impossible to upgrade in Emacs 29, of course. The only way I > >> know is to M-x package-list-packages, find Eglot 1.14 in the list, mar= k > >> it with 'i' and confirm installation with 'x'. But it is very awkward= . > > > > Maybe we should add a `package-upgrade` command? > > Just for :core packages or how would this differ from package-update? Just a note that I forgot M-x package-update existed. I was hoping it wouldn't suffer the same bug as package-install, but alas it does. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 10:42:51 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 14:42:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59274 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl9mF-0003D0-8L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 10:42:51 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:44633) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl9mC-0003Ck-SG for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 10:42:49 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECC04240186 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:42:42 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1680964963; bh=0FRzeztaXAmxL2sFu8gov4k6WI7F+/vdn6+OfHfQm+w=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=PCTXyt1exbGEN75xKjgFFr313qoYqxhrYeRtoul54xzNsqwtP8yzAQPonTaGVGraO qUrlqZAsIgJFmahk1yV0b2uQX5etCJkgH4cBGtwkbag6Jmr1nT4FBT0dJIA73SfQvx feyVpdVXKRlbi09JpPbOVvdCCtt1uzjebRifoXb2LQ3ind8E9fq69IzWzFr9/O6YqO TY0g6DaqIg8C/C2V+keC8ttQKBCoBoeo5oFfwuJjzeA/g4F5pw32r3y5rOfvCjoVHi FaAyYzJZ/+mcW7vNFgHPDywBo7NfwjhbzislGxydA9FgoGEZjS/lyggEsZUk3C91u4 5uK7LPAalBYUQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PtydF6GgBz6trm; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:42:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Sat, 8 Apr 2023 11:48:45 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2023 14:42:40 +0000 Message-ID: <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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: -3.3 (---) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 11:43=E2=80=AFAM Philip Kaludercic wrote: >> >> Stefan Monnier writes: >> >> >> It's not impossible to upgrade in Emacs 29, of course. The only way I >> >> know is to M-x package-list-packages, find Eglot 1.14 in the list, ma= rk >> >> it with 'i' and confirm installation with 'x'. But it is very awkwar= d. >> > >> > Maybe we should add a `package-upgrade` command? >> >> Just for :core packages or how would this differ from package-update? > > Just a note that I forgot M-x package-update existed. I was > hoping it wouldn't suffer the same bug as package-install, but > alas it does. As package-update just defers to package-install, I don't find this surprising. What you want is that package.el always treats a built-in package as upgradable to a package from ELPA. It seems like this should be possible by adjusting the interactive spec of package-install and modifying package-compute-transaction or even package-built-in-p. > Jo=C3=A3o --=20 Philip Kaludercic From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 10:49:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 14:49:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59285 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl9sP-0003SK-CL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 10:49:13 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:49887) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pl9sO-0003S8-41 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 10:49:12 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 537D8240130 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:49:06 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1680965346; bh=Gh4fI/LnbhMSuTtOZJbGLlcO4svCwhRjET6tmrI7meQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=sHAz4qwOmZpgpi5nJwslKWuWLykYSnmraamEy3MKB+ishtmo92Lbgjh4BecpH13oa 0HvJWaflhJLvTPysZ3eglQe8ymMCfLQyFudGXPSHh+LihmjInByQrjzwCp+jjWygfo sbq99lsOVuB0phkfFTMtn5tMO1Wd7vyisrhqtGOJOsFKVn7UBivbwUss7L/4eaRi+G ngiSZYddlEvCPVsgG+xbHrDwb60lM10xWgTJYTYcDbJg2cLfZ5GDAbx9auJy4sPAzU n5NwGhDjMG/pLIOhECbdDZo+erxX1jVn+Vow7kIdM87YIUkidlxJ2SpHbxTX0C0qp3 dnVD32hV0Po7w== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Ptymd4X3mz6twP; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:49:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Ihor Radchenko To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <835ya6onmz.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2023 14:51:27 +0000 Message-ID: <87cz4exw9c.fsf@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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: -3.3 (---) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > Alternatively, there could be some kind of 'package-bugfixes' non-:core > package in elpa.git that adds this new command. Asking people to install > that package first is still easier than guiding then through that odd > workflow. I think that adding this into compat.el could be also justified. With compat.el being ELPA dependency. --=20 Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 11:21:22 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 15:21:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59323 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plANW-0006pD-DD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:21:22 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f50.google.com ([209.85.160.50]:36802) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plANV-0006p1-0e for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:21:21 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f50.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1841c57c221so3732658fac.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 08:21:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680967275; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=9SZCpIxszP0h41gxB76Njnk4ggyLVaSn+egfRtFyWNE=; b=Nvo7OS2t5KdgfiQtuc9FqkG5bN1oBsPiBuBAjLclSfoLRWydHCWBUPm2L7V7My+mo9 CofBRHFDuHZtjf5/v852T4Ku+4sR7gOuIdeoWFSTct7JCiRUjHFNNx26vhx4VqXQqDF5 ekRgKNGhM0K72o9/A2QqM4LhvjHAqxrxsCQB7LWY+oUoxeeFKcKCBoPIE8pBC07jmPKT qZHhqo1g9Lv0/WEyN6J3Dyp6qLvzhos42UH+XM310MBw24WvvyWQnvtcX8Q9jYrEm0bZ 0UN/grBWv+OUzrerXcxlvmfnv41w2Jj82f5AMUkoUHAs7uNRse9tdiDDa/dDUWlKclQ8 IAlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680967275; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9SZCpIxszP0h41gxB76Njnk4ggyLVaSn+egfRtFyWNE=; b=ht5bTzqSafQKQbYpVI6sDLVr3LAzc4QzBMPw+eJ3kD1YCR5ziuAIAmL4O9TV1zeX3X KaertFUCF4a7resn8L6DpNwIppNn29nZCxNaISCXo6Q6gBFRdc/SGzl4C8LcBL9XODKd Y3oAh2N1MaajAUFfoP9XaWDrYvRHw5tRltJdZ2G7fLPDZw+h6PoIgHNN7A8+E3Liv+Xo I1m6amBNg5qe7h5mQz/0rVM97NNMIhZGZxBXvD3FMQ+atE8f+qIBKlCaLRE/EAJQ4Prc /v9R2HtsDFQzc3yUcueGlHfSSVH9I8bzs1I6vOJZK3smikab+tYM+een+uRIQ1pPP5Y3 Kgiw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cIXjzPgPHfXraCjzsH/h9BsKNnvoExFSm2PqyF2qoOFzv1VMs5 doklgeP8EBzSyVpDl17UfIE2DWXcZ/blss0hXYs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bBoPg6nCYFWFSB+uc9H0iVwJgV/WNknVz4Efa3o08vsaEt4RBw8wJqWWNBEqni/pcaNGAX+zp81ZbE2oRXmkw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:d608:b0:17d:7221:d80c with SMTP id a8-20020a056870d60800b0017d7221d80cmr1104832oaq.5.1680967275361; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 08:21:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <835ya6onmz.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz4exw9c.fsf@localhost> In-Reply-To: <87cz4exw9c.fsf@localhost> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:23:08 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Ihor Radchenko Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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 (-) On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 3:49=E2=80=AFPM Ihor Radchenko = wrote: > > Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > > > Alternatively, there could be some kind of 'package-bugfixes' non-:core > > package in elpa.git that adds this new command. Asking people to instal= l > > that package first is still easier than guiding then through that odd > > workflow. > > I think that adding this into compat.el could be also justified. > With compat.el being ELPA dependency. But compat.el is not :core right? So Eglot cannot depend on it. Also I think that's a bit beyond the purpose of compat, though I don't oppose it. I really think package.el, like other package managers, should learn to update itself. It should be a :core ELPA package itself. But then that also requires this bug to be fixed. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 11:23:37 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 15:23:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59328 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plAPg-0006sm-Us for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:23:37 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:44945) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plAPf-0006sX-8e for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:23:35 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f46.google.com with SMTP id q23-20020a05683031b700b006a1370e214aso20377322ots.11 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 08:23:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680967409; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=dN5588BvQ9omDMDL7Pxy4iZhn+GM5FrXYzkggDfOaIE=; b=L9/4WyhcxXLP1l9TC7w3X4ZnPuLlktI5E0P3Shr59KEgyjcTJItvnbju3BC+m1HCz8 PLhiRukE6nn5nXMg9xMGYVhuQApJlg8AXR4B42SyLVIvdaQDMTxikqKzyLD5vyg+u54p mT0LL8umsySJCRj5kFgiBkRZG9gGrnr97StGBRMx30xzDQXapQdbi9sV/Qo/Y9bdDlm3 CvQxNZDq8V/RZ2WMarRuXR8XdzU9Kwxd+0J7iFqcpbiHqDfvz8lJcrx8GNqrhS6WgJZK 4fbZNpcceKvBkl1wtVj/DTLLXmlPkRAR1vvIqhlrMBqXelgOQqK7xBRabq8cb47trwk+ 6cMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680967409; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dN5588BvQ9omDMDL7Pxy4iZhn+GM5FrXYzkggDfOaIE=; b=RE7Y2C53TlfJPC5i69yjd0IrttGddEDz68oWGq9OhO4nVmPwplKHY0D4kCmjY6HHL1 TE5D3rdDRpfuUE7WK4FYcODrD2pR1q7ZP0JA9medY5Dw6IaRZsaePOW5MVi8aOqJJYhC BkLA4SYIYwRVSCJBfboCMqSyJKDqFMBjFzpygMbjI0bzE1EREXccl3X5YtGXiRuGzBew B6PQaNU7qDOuPT7M3b5eTPgWdGf6P/bQAgXLkqKHl/hG1ADnv3jtBxwlZvV8DGUj+CLo qjaCyVj5yvdSY5A46IJPWUfqZQOYHgL/YYqk5c0pGP3CVJQs5eqIaeU9OvFPMbJu91Ce WlZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9er6XmQgHXf5fPfqbSBRCpWPoLh1iRgDzyWPn+DxV9MY3yl81D7 bt5GA5UuVRBz3384x8e0WZUrqgWBWIVZbFiwOQg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ay72VWQuWOe4QK/Kt2+8gwBDNt4V9J4A/jGZSmPZjUwtk+jvISmz0pEAW07702hvya6ulAUP1jDAKCmUp2bC4= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6f0d:0:b0:6a3:e0df:6868 with SMTP id n13-20020a9d6f0d000000b006a3e0df6868mr470759otq.4.1680967409697; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 08:23:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> In-Reply-To: <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:25:22 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Philip Kaludercic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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 (-) On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 3:42=E2=80=AFPM Philip Kaludercic wrote: > > Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > > > On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 11:43=E2=80=AFAM Philip Kaludercic wrote: > >> > >> Stefan Monnier writes: > >> > >> >> It's not impossible to upgrade in Emacs 29, of course. The only wa= y I > >> >> know is to M-x package-list-packages, find Eglot 1.14 in the list, = mark > >> >> it with 'i' and confirm installation with 'x'. But it is very awkw= ard. > >> > > >> > Maybe we should add a `package-upgrade` command? > >> > >> Just for :core packages or how would this differ from package-update? > > > > Just a note that I forgot M-x package-update existed. I was > > hoping it wouldn't suffer the same bug as package-install, but > > alas it does. > > As package-update just defers to package-install, I don't find this > surprising. What you want is that package.el always treats a built-in > package as upgradable to a package from ELPA. It seems like this should > be possible by adjusting the interactive spec of package-install and > modifying package-compute-transaction or even package-built-in-p. Sounds good. Can you propose a patch so we have something to look at and test? Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 11:28:50 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 15:28:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59334 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plAUj-00071O-M3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:28:50 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:36803) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plAUi-00071A-5c for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:28:48 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4FBB2400A3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 17:28:42 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1680967722; bh=1Fxr550C9+uNxPSRY4bnD2NiAUypT98d8mlAR3GH5wU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=TJrUHCjB4ISBNQOPS5pk7JKhqZtkSLdy8/K0z4rWL8wLfVbNuAm7zNF5JJmBDMdTL yHklOa5t+7pxBZtjCqup79VZZXYEGeBZ7+mZNJIb79IeRVMcksPgcefweck4zt7xvs 3fkBhGva8Wo+JvJPLrSfs77RpJ/6fbKbYN6j5zAoLMqikagDoCdi5wfIfHLEf9OkWI 2DzSAcGyt8eFqKgynDUClPp+0Bd+1cgGSyX7hE2Bwn+rvDpoEoiqP+1Anj20n5+MXZ Z/r7Qo0uGuG0tP1WJkEsp44xMEZeh2nKDQfN6U6r5TTbPvJQqmeLqmE0mDNBlXd+vR OPyiN0qPCWSSg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PtzfK2vk9z9rxL; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 17:28:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Ihor Radchenko To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <835ya6onmz.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz4exw9c.fsf@localhost> Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2023 15:31:02 +0000 Message-ID: <877cumxufd.fsf@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Daniel Mendler , Eli Zaretskii , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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: -3.3 (---) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: >> I think that adding this into compat.el could be also justified. >> With compat.el being ELPA dependency. > > But compat.el is not :core right? So Eglot cannot depend on it. Several packages in :core do depend on compat. The idea is to use (require 'compat nil 'noerror), which does nothing in core, but enables forward-compatibility features on ELPA. See https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/doc/compat.html#Usage > Also I think that's a bit beyond the purpose of compat, though > I don't oppose it. I really think package.el, like other package > managers, should learn to update itself. It should be a :core > ELPA package itself. But then that also requires this bug to > be fixed. I agree that it is slightly out of scope of compat. But this particular problem appears to be important enough as exception. --=20 Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 11:45:46 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 15:45:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59349 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plAl7-0007Sl-RN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:45:46 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:59877) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plAl6-0007SZ-80 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:45:44 -0400 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F3A9B805B7; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 11:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8CF9A803E6; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 11:45:33 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1680968733; bh=hr3omlsAut1/nCe1fIsgFoaOHSzpWdN6cBoMExLcXy8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Bku3RvK0EmRTm2jm360JLaIHzTTYtsqwHM0b3m9sPCISiGf9dRqiFCQNWa4vDr1rM h6jJec6DLWraccQIjW0mdq5zn/GhQznoPX59Yibh6PhlH/1qwKGRsktfh7ZjOA7+qu x7ihPgJwcczXY4MODlim/Co9XarUrpXJcmB9tK45GAJPbek6t3pzvnGgsJFnKjQrp9 iCJFe0j/DQir6YAkWPOrljt1trdmrWQx7E2e6A9ZA/q9Jh5AMjlsZU8mB5xO05YjrD PiDj8COInLjVHPCpxtFp0S09OPkPMzIMdttnEHxhxjxF6eYX/PCD31dWeeSc5wvRTd D8bSWZXSMuYQg== Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.217.176]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E99A1233B2; Sat, 8 Apr 2023 11:45:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Philip Kaludercic Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Sat, 08 Apr 2023 14:42:40 +0000") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:45:32 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.058 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= 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: -3.3 (---) > As package-update just defers to package-install, I don't find this > surprising. What you want is that package.el always treats a built-in > package as upgradable to a package from ELPA. It seems like this should > be possible by adjusting the interactive spec of package-install and > modifying package-compute-transaction or even package-built-in-p. I agree, tho I don't understand why you say "built-in" above. Isn't the problem also present for already-installed-but-out-of-date ELPA packages? Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 08 14:10:32 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2023 18:10:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59493 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plD1D-0005ij-Li for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 14:10:32 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f43.google.com ([209.85.210.43]:39463) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plD1B-0005iT-SK for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 14:10:30 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f43.google.com with SMTP id r40-20020a05683044a800b006a14270bc7eso20025169otv.6 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:10:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680977424; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=B3Ok3S1idphkuhz77K9TVsqU9J+Db1S2eieCuEXp7VI=; b=j6bFgu2hDPhtHbJV/N6s9fUTb9V4QQ4wkExUsxjPZZIctkoGqMFJIokvxSHqSu/C7k v6N2+2a/+d2k7YA+Rr6Q8/eKeGT/Jlck+7HSwsbF9xv7ELb4sgjQHL248DUDLwN3qfsl 2nhKLBopOhD/EYhAnyghCPmwYhjIj/lUZp+oLYp2vnth+84efiXnAGXbYEllOqRAQG1P zHy3E19OvXy0NOXO4SLXeDTPPmZpkhtr2nq7JQc9SSm5mqaF5ox7weJI3eLM071A1r3Y Ww+lFS458tgZ7bKeODDgIOz6O9v8tHFgDQcIaZ0Kd3ZVGd9nMrq56yhW+uxrd/p4/mxS rEeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680977424; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=B3Ok3S1idphkuhz77K9TVsqU9J+Db1S2eieCuEXp7VI=; b=EUaDVdh2uVTvuRHdJbP0KnF1/OZuhGdXGOmnMfanVYb4PXAlqwi920lKNfYpfJAWf+ tC+g22KR2TpHN1RWCtrO+FZj1lDo4PCKn6Y/e5T/qYhhBEp8yfkxb7m80rCmhLIvc6Wa rfT+I5jVB6QMQlihYYmpZ5EUW+Azs4kYPQe4za3BAJdPbM9xUIBXl0r/j4LSfmHKbchI Mx0wQahkQobb+jd5ty+yLAj3CgGyqX1RMNfJilN15GrVrG9JTGZgG0fmbYm+dBLucE2y 14spAOWQuPwgrkp5Uz4xJjC+wjzaitMAEMbMLqXmcGseqSyhRuIVYUheisWNpY/a8v7F cnrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cZIgCimjtzfI4p6Pd/+wKhcrThZTHPCfD1cdM5h1J1pxj45hue oPWeJZyp2GNzXgU5s/K/UnIYL+DacvUepIPEstE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Y0n37qGm9LWHVINMc+d2+LI56TszNRHIf4prc9klg8mH3lBxqBJUEVkvYsQYURjUmDOjTJ6LdoiNrnhbqwCmI= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7495:0:b0:698:6b65:f563 with SMTP id t21-20020a9d7495000000b006986b65f563mr616720otk.4.1680977423509; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:10:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <835ya6onmz.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz4exw9c.fsf@localhost> <877cumxufd.fsf@localhost> In-Reply-To: <877cumxufd.fsf@localhost> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 19:10:12 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Ihor Radchenko Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000342e0f05f8d70e0f" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Daniel Mendler , Eli Zaretskii , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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 (-) --000000000000342e0f05f8d70e0f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Apr 8, 2023, 16:28 Ihor Radchenko wrote: > Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > > >> I think that adding this into compat.el could be also justified. > >> With compat.el being ELPA dependency. > > > > But compat.el is not :core right? So Eglot cannot depend on it. > > Several packages in :core do depend on compat. The idea is to use > (require 'compat nil 'noerror), which does nothing in core, but enables > forward-compatibility features on ELPA. > Sure, that works, your right. And it's a good idea. But it doesn't solve _this_ problem even if compat.el patches package.el, because once you get Emacs 29, you're locked out of ELPA Eglot (unless you take that very circuitous route). > Also I think that's a bit beyond the purpose of compat, though > > I don't oppose it. I really think package.el, like other package > > managers, should learn to update itself. It should be a :core > > ELPA package itself. But then that also requires this bug to > > be fixed. > > I agree that it is slightly out of scope of compat. But this particular > problem appears to be important enough as exception. > Yes, but more importantly, i don't think there's a fix to this bug that can be done fully ELPA-side. Jo=C3=A3o > --000000000000342e0f05f8d70e0f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023, 16:28 Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> wrote:
Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora <joaotavora@gmail.com= > writes:

>> I think that adding this into compat.el could be also justified. >> With compat.el being ELPA dependency.
>
> But compat.el is not :core right?=C2=A0 So Eglot cannot depend on it.<= br>
Several packages in :core do depend on compat. The idea is to use
(require 'compat nil 'noerror), which does nothing in core, but ena= bles
forward-compatibility features on ELPA.

Sure, that works, your right. And it= 's a good idea.=C2=A0

But it doesn't solve _this_ problem even if compat.el patches package= .el, because once you get Emacs 29, you're locked out of ELPA Eglot (un= less you take that very circuitous route).


Yes, but more important= ly, i don't think there's a fix to this bug that can be done fully = ELPA-side.

Jo=C3=A3o
--000000000000342e0f05f8d70e0f-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 10 12:01:50 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2023 16:01:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35783 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pltxm-0000Q5-02 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:01:50 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f48.google.com ([209.85.161.48]:37721) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pltxk-0000Ps-5a for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:01:48 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f48.google.com with SMTP id r1-20020a4acb01000000b00541c8b2a4b4so485373ooq.4 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:01:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1681142502; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=p622tmW70/OfFiPOPNZru2jF8gKg+u2fUwU4UIrsfw8=; b=nVAumEbmhQqZaoWpiDwHxrd+A+ikVLqaAfeF1lP3j9CsY9oNxaEICDIE9J0AvV5FQW 4b86gRj5dyQ2Hyuqz1/vXd5tyCh1JQu4MljNg+EpiJ22vc1/oLm8f+KQoxVatkUHrov7 9IfDFolYkbAuhP8BoXEZHZKQMdnoZCefwvk7/0VXPh8y5/pLOoLSQH7qapQKYgyHmKbe rdLoxeCkK2WNCcvmpW3o+IQBTpfV/8h0m5YRcNACrOPWvk/OQyDyHgakttFGtYEpZaUs uRgNVX1w3GMpdTKy8nq4ii1yamrErECpFr1CHS/wXvtlskQBcYTVyypzn91xCck7qQKG VMMQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681142502; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=p622tmW70/OfFiPOPNZru2jF8gKg+u2fUwU4UIrsfw8=; b=6Qn70mQo6d74TdgVzQsSmImNepQcbl0G7jQUfU/y5UsJG+2fsFTCALNF22pxG7j4NT E/ODQV+lIVbvQvfe6sME51WAvhZZs0V9UK9vhF3Yhvg6BzFlbOOv0vtVEwbk3TlVUPDs VX8at4SqxKaWp3spODvvu1bMr+CSUnYo3eN1fSFgByvnfM+/ErGBZ2I3T+8N0LPDlGCC aPvQVbF0hRv4nptf5T0YROvRfQuK6aiymyF1l4/XeYziLaj4JK9klquHiD9TzU5fjHK6 JH8hYXtRLMDU9Udz2UU9dt3Ql/LvK9LskhWcflvvkqFGMHK2AAg0x2CMW9kP52Vq3Znq XR/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9e5Vp6oq0DP31I0XbFSTs2Cbnftodi1xqm0LbZaouEi795or7mz /jf4HPfwM+cC1vkJXga3prxRCXwCe0rp29KqGb0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZoE6aHRN31OOnrvCBGfSf9iJdpMBHVWJZp7G6nTsB1Yl9n60cxLY/bwVyg2IUjrAjUTGpyYxZLa37wg8oxwVI= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:d186:0:b0:52e:17e2:7d4c with SMTP id j6-20020a4ad186000000b0052e17e27d4cmr2399281oor.1.1681142502164; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:01:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:01:31 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Stefan Monnier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Philip Kaludercic , 62720@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 (-) On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:45=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > As package-update just defers to package-install, I don't find this > > surprising. What you want is that package.el always treats a built-in > > package as upgradable to a package from ELPA. It seems like this shoul= d > > be possible by adjusting the interactive spec of package-install and > > modifying package-compute-transaction or even package-built-in-p. > > I agree, tho I don't understand why you say "built-in" above. Isn't the > problem also present for already-installed-but-out-of-date ELPA packages? I bit the bullet and went after this in package.el. The answer is no, it's not present for those packages. But Philip's imagined fix seems to be more complicated than it needs to be. Here's a simple patch that works well in my tests. It makes M-x package-update also update built-in-packages. diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..f54b6f39e40 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -2243,11 +2243,16 @@ package-update (let* ((package (if (symbolp name) name (intern name))) - (pkg-desc (cadr (assq package package-alist)))) - (if (package-vc-p pkg-desc) - (package-vc-update pkg-desc) - (package-delete pkg-desc 'force) - (package-install package 'dont-select)))) + (nonbuiltin (assq package package-alist))) + (cond (nonbuiltin + (let ((desc (cadr nonbuiltin))) + (if (package-vc-p desc) + (package-vc-update desc) + (package-delete desc 'force) + (package-install package 'dont-select)))) + (t + (package-install + (cadr (assq package package-archive-contents))))))) (defun package--updateable-packages () ;; Initialize the package system to get the list of package @@ -2261,10 +2266,14 @@ package--updateable-packages (assq (car elt) package-archive-contents))) (and available (version-list-< - (package-desc-version (cadr elt)) + (if (vectorp (cdr elt)) (aref (cdr elt) 0) + (package-desc-version (cadr elt))) (package-desc-version (cadr available))))) - (package-vc-p (cadr (assq (car elt) package-alist))))) - package-alist))) + (and (consp (cdr elt)) + (package-desc-p (cadr elt)) + (package-vc-p (cadr elt))))) + (seq-union package-alist package--builtins + (lambda (a b) (eq (car a) (car b))))))) ;;;###autoload (defun package-update-all (&optional query) The only thing that's slightly inelegant/hard-to-follow is that the format of package-alist is different than package--builtins. Lots of consp, cdr-taking, vectorp and so on. Besides that, it's a question of taking the union of the two sets and operating on that. This also relies on seq-union's undocumented behavior of keeping the first of any duplicates. Feel free to rewrite. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 10 14:13:30 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2023 18:13:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35882 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plw1C-0006WC-8t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 14:13:30 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:48363) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1plw1A-0006Vy-ER for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 14:13:29 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EEE824026C for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:13:22 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681150402; bh=E/somDT+EfRoKCquKOkqyy50qOdeGTbsStfWnQeNeg8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=otUelVP0T5w3FuPx0O+oJwC/jCX1WR10Uvs1nDEssj1hU4mIBrnVa9klOqz+OMw13 RrnU/PVk42iE+KkeWIYBy/GTWZ+0qALUXiHSWW2enpRDyUaYgOSDt236QuvQqROau2 OOmTmUymGmlyzFYALaD6sBIXIrlrmURf7D6wk+MRFtkMRzwtVOh/oWIzPVyqkMiNxB f8pPxjl51PyY6O0kBruyC32HlNtBr3s96gGwInmWw2bPlQojn9eHaiMdmmN5fTfJWA N8PdLBIiBQJvjt7YenMZtHEixETgQY/9C+SNrL+ZOSiPhMNeyaJhBw7PufF4dweyGP h2dFxMLvsj3SQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PwHCP3gxnz6tsB; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:13:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:01:31 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 18:13:50 +0000 Message-ID: <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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: -3.3 (---) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:45=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier wrote: >> >> > As package-update just defers to package-install, I don't find this >> > surprising. What you want is that package.el always treats a built-in >> > package as upgradable to a package from ELPA. It seems like this shou= ld >> > be possible by adjusting the interactive spec of package-install and >> > modifying package-compute-transaction or even package-built-in-p. >> >> I agree, tho I don't understand why you say "built-in" above. Isn't the >> problem also present for already-installed-but-out-of-date ELPA packages? > > I bit the bullet and went after this in package.el. The answer is no, > it's not present for those packages. > > But Philip's imagined fix seems to be more complicated than it needs > to be. Here's a simple patch that works well in my tests. It makes > M-x package-update also update built-in-packages. > > diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el > index f92afe56b76..f54b6f39e40 100644 > --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el > +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el > @@ -2243,11 +2243,16 @@ package-update > (let* ((package (if (symbolp name) > name > (intern name))) > - (pkg-desc (cadr (assq package package-alist)))) > - (if (package-vc-p pkg-desc) > - (package-vc-update pkg-desc) > - (package-delete pkg-desc 'force) > - (package-install package 'dont-select)))) > + (nonbuiltin (assq package package-alist))) > + (cond (nonbuiltin > + (let ((desc (cadr nonbuiltin))) > + (if (package-vc-p desc) > + (package-vc-update desc) > + (package-delete desc 'force) > + (package-install package 'dont-select)))) > + (t > + (package-install > + (cadr (assq package package-archive-contents))))))) > > (defun package--updateable-packages () > ;; Initialize the package system to get the list of package > @@ -2261,10 +2266,14 @@ package--updateable-packages > (assq (car elt) package-archive-contents))) > (and available > (version-list-< > - (package-desc-version (cadr elt)) > + (if (vectorp (cdr elt)) (aref (cdr elt) 0) > + (package-desc-version (cadr elt))) > (package-desc-version (cadr available))))) > - (package-vc-p (cadr (assq (car elt) package-alist))))) > - package-alist))) > + (and (consp (cdr elt)) > + (package-desc-p (cadr elt)) > + (package-vc-p (cadr elt))))) > + (seq-union package-alist package--builtins > + (lambda (a b) (eq (car a) (car b))))))) Will this not affect `package-update-all'? I don't if we want that the command installs all packages from ELPA that it can find. > ;;;###autoload > (defun package-update-all (&optional query) > > The only thing that's slightly inelegant/hard-to-follow is that > the format of package-alist is different than package--builtins. > Lots of consp, cdr-taking, vectorp and so on. Besides that, it's > a question of taking the union of the two sets and operating on that. That is necessary complexity, so I don't think there is any way around it. > This also relies on seq-union's undocumented behavior of keeping > the first of any duplicates. Feel free to rewrite. > > Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 07:00:57 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 11:00:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36714 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmBk8-0006ua-OC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 07:00:57 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com ([209.85.128.46]:35353) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmBk4-0006uJ-Fr for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 07:00:55 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id v14-20020a05600c470e00b003f06520825fso9331257wmo.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 04:00:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1681210846; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eOlO9mj4EpoZyG/4ZA4MsC7PzVYmFOt0Vxzn/lnfFYw=; b=U1Q3RAfAit/n3JZ7pF/Ibl4sjA5t590COf5/n6Kjv1NWyjBZEd2TIRQu0lnUJFILfq 1zXaNs/Cp7Yvvd9AGZjoBL/XmoqaECh7eMbVcSLHA7McQNMTnY7xuBfWiIh/5xW/eEZo bHvxEUxPiP7AwZSfDxhZET/jquOtE+K29PlXM2VeqkoREfnqr6BoxUbI52nQ0HkVJOzh fcjX5NdVJWzXQNT4xrxh1nbDUTQjniu1i600rTsx+LG45wo6VsxRw6cluXpw4PrcRTkE Z/DzHpcMqtvuPumfBmywdsHrN2GgWK4/+FrFM086ooODSYsyvYfqy5NShzNeZyYBYLSv YqfQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681210846; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=eOlO9mj4EpoZyG/4ZA4MsC7PzVYmFOt0Vxzn/lnfFYw=; b=JIFbp9k28g3i8OLcF8Ey15gfqPp9dcZG2X7CncgCLAXhmDzrVbeEOUB/RPSqA6Wdvs kULbL4X71JqI+w3MoMqm1f5QdYQePu9nQD9tHfdj2QaZ1XzwYOeRlFi5LH1/LJIzWC4q 1bjYFYyRWKiaBfK/n5T/Acd2TPgBpflqgFaRO1wQFYipDctAhK52Sred31rMA/T4gLRU 691aRZ2qR4zpkTwe46VUyoSzTqksB43HU6Bx1qlosqFhvKcI/+s/8alKJe9vtpJTCdY2 aN9PJWIaTFdE65Aag1OXi8SF5QFXaAqAqwwu1pkd4gmClOnCsKEmKytyo4N7XQRNfJBa zf6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fgZOqMwUQjVMWkEGhini/6YzYOb9oEp7m0caPh/4K1RDIEuxtD juTI3Mw8gztxQbLvG8msUG4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Yd1pIAEFhrk+nV8CVqPEMuUR+sC6rnPGa4pBDdxGe3PGWmJoG/8XyFTDbbfvklfcRuQwLHiw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f705:0:b0:3f0:4e04:b8f8 with SMTP id v5-20020a1cf705000000b003f04e04b8f8mr9430344wmh.39.1681210846281; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 04:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z3-20020a05600c0a0300b003ee6aa4e6a9sm21019785wmp.5.2023.04.11.04.00.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 11 Apr 2023 04:00:43 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: Philip Kaludercic Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Mon, 10 Apr 2023 18:13:50 +0000") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:02:48 +0100 Message-ID: <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, eliz@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Philip Kaludercic writes: > Will this not affect `package-update-all'? I don't if we want that the > command installs all packages from ELPA that it can find. 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. In this case, in a bare emacs-29/src/emacs -Q, it updates the Eglot package, the Eldoc package and few others. I think this is exactly what M-x package-update-all is supposed to do (but see notes at the end of this email). So I think my change to the existing package-update and package--updateable-packages fixes the bug cleanly. >> Lots of consp, cdr-taking, vectorp and so on. Besides that, it's >> a question of taking the union of the two sets and operating on that. > That is necessary complexity, so I don't think there is any way around it. There is, but that's just an improvement, in this case to the type-starved 'package--bi-desc' structure and the 'package--builtins' built by finder.el. A common structure format should be used. Or, better yet, CLOS. Anyway, with the version of the patch I posted earlier, there are the 6 (six) packages updated currently from a "bare" emacs 29. (csharp-mode eglot eldoc jsonrpc transient verilog-mode) Of these, csharp-mode and transient are mistakes. But that's not my patch's fault :-)=20 - csharp-mode.el is merely missing version information, so package.el thinks that the ELPA version supersedes it (when in fact it doesn't: it's older). The patch adds version information to csharp-mode.el to fix that. - transient.el has version information but in a header that finder.el doesn't recognize. The patch has a minimal fix for that, too. So the final patch that I'm proposing for emacs 29 is attached. M-x package-update-all fixes those cases and correctly finds and updates 4 packages to their newest released versions, exactly as it should. (eglot eldoc jsonrpc verilog-mode) Eli, what do you think? Who is package.el's main maintainer? Everyone? Lars added M-x package-update (for Emacs 29) so I'm pinging him as well. Jo=C3=A3o --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline; filename=0001-Add-ability-to-update-built-in-packages-bug-62720.patch Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >From 65e811a0fcf9ffd1f12b8b2a2d9d8a0474543b36 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =3D?UTF-8?q?Jo=3DC3=3DA3o=3D20T=3DC3=3DA1vora?=3D Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:52:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Add ability to update built-in packages (bug#62720) Previously package.el's M-x package-update command completely ignored built-in packages. With this patch in place, it updates them along with any other manually installed non-built-in packages, as long as the version available from ELPA is newer. To prevent misupdates of the 'transient.el' and 'csharp-mode.el' packages, which are built into emacs-29, version information is now correctly collected from these two. * lisp/finder.el (finder-compile-keywords): Be aware of "Package-Version" header. * lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el (package-update): Rework. (package--updateable-packages): Rework. * lisp/progmodes/csharp-mode.el: Add version information. --- lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 26 ++++++++++++++++++-------- lisp/finder.el | 2 +- lisp/progmodes/csharp-mode.el | 1 + 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..286583100c3 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -2243,11 +2243,16 @@ package-update (let* ((package (if (symbolp name) name (intern name))) - (pkg-desc (cadr (assq package package-alist)))) - (if (package-vc-p pkg-desc) - (package-vc-update pkg-desc) - (package-delete pkg-desc 'force) - (package-install package 'dont-select)))) + (nonbuiltin (assq package package-alist))) + (cond (nonbuiltin + (let ((desc (cadr nonbuiltin))) + (if (package-vc-p desc) + (package-vc-update desc) + (package-delete desc 'force) + (package-install package 'dont-select)))) + (t + (package-install + (cadr (assq package package-archive-contents))))))) =20 (defun package--updateable-packages () ;; Initialize the package system to get the list of package @@ -2261,10 +2266,15 @@ package--updateable-packages (assq (car elt) package-archive-contents))) (and available (version-list-< - (package-desc-version (cadr elt)) + (if (vectorp (cdr elt)) + (aref (cdr elt) 0) + (package-desc-version (cadr elt))) (package-desc-version (cadr available))))) - (package-vc-p (cadr (assq (car elt) package-alist))))) - package-alist))) + (and (consp (cdr elt)) + (package-desc-p (cadr elt)) + (package-vc-p (cadr elt))))) + (seq-union package-alist package--builtins + (lambda (a b) (eq (car a) (car b))))))) =20 ;;;###autoload (defun package-update-all (&optional query) diff --git a/lisp/finder.el b/lisp/finder.el index 5aec0149b89..ddc6d6f03da 100644 --- a/lisp/finder.el +++ b/lisp/finder.el @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ finder-compile-keywords summary (or (cdr (assq package finder--builtins-descriptions)) (lm-synopsis)) - version (lm-header "version"))) + version (or (lm-header "package-version") (lm-header "version")))) (when summary (setq version (or (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)) (alist-get package package--builtin-versions= ))) diff --git a/lisp/progmodes/csharp-mode.el b/lisp/progmodes/csharp-mode.el index 47cd13e7fdb..cd045cd14d1 100644 --- a/lisp/progmodes/csharp-mode.el +++ b/lisp/progmodes/csharp-mode.el @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ ;; Jostein Kj=C3=B8nigsen ;; Created : September 2022 ;; Keywords : c# languages oop +;; Version : 3.0.0 =20 ;; This file is part of GNU Emacs. =20 --=20 2.39.2 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 07:39:38 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 11:39:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36780 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmCLa-0001uq-AX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 07:39:38 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45012) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmCLX-0001ud-CX for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 07:39:37 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmCLP-0005U9-DA; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 07:39:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=ZJj+fWEQ0sIf1RWJCoJJnJLm2Q91O/EJz1LyhmPwCfo=; b=FGGEAKQqTjoTgz+N3ZZy kXqNG7I1/5P01lsuLXXRZXeQ+7Ab3AxmmxV5aOGsa1LNJi2q7S1mr6hT07e9iAmqCVmYFgvQmh0oM ofsIrd+aVyblpna0/9V57+XUZ2favSzv+6Icc2QKFsFOJnW8vFo3JMmFBy+EZmmhQIsQXnriljCgx HQ+KRx+fHF/q5q7Dl8Fsd8cAs7WlH1FFbYVWJD8SHj3p0vDdvObO5ozQ2s7NPLYL2eu7bDHwm40Ad Gf9KPCc4CxhZkc3hF2E53pnLFCURuUSG5C4u4qQ9PMGni0T3ME2h7tfqu4Uywr5OuIxkchp62xns0 GiKiNzzRrJZUVA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmCLM-0004aB-9B; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 07:39:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:40:05 +0300 Message-Id: <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28g?= =?utf-8?B?VMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:02:48 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Cc: eliz@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:02:48 +0100 > > So the final patch that I'm proposing for emacs 29 is attached. M-x > package-update-all fixes those cases and correctly finds and updates 4 > packages to their newest released versions, exactly as it should. > > (eglot eldoc jsonrpc verilog-mode) > > Eli, what do you think? I'd prefer it to go to master, not to emacs-29. The problem is not grave enough and OTOH the workaround is simple enough. So changing package.el in such non-trivial ways is not something I'd like to risk now. > Who is package.el's main maintainer? Everyone? > Lars added M-x package-update (for Emacs 29) so I'm pinging him as well. I think it's mostly Philip and Stefan. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 08:50:43 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 12:50:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36860 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmDSM-000481-7j for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 08:50:43 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f52.google.com ([209.85.221.52]:34400) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmDSH-00046t-FM for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 08:50:41 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f52.google.com with SMTP id i27so7413323wrc.1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 05:50:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1681217431; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=mmK5pGm2kd0TsILqcFZD5eO2553kCSZsjzg6c7Q0Dus=; b=hcW/i5VthbLHb9vKzEUVZFUDyi2743F9q5hGu5ZJiQ/tG28Tgp+eCvx7r6mlhEmtxo aSDRn26UZOEZwEmySstCUzMqjN22T54Ms0AISL0LIjKM7cCxAKjL1AkXPeGTdS2QPXJ2 1q4t3WgaChrTBFtojw4o2C9k1HPLQg5kBzok5wmKfATZXaN7c1GkQBFXBqhx04LWmSyy q4n/zbuzRhSWvq8oDjwPOGTyxIduccDPL+C5rW3hOBRVsLNNk4J7ia8QxJLzw0I0/7lQ BYiqoGk9WXK0GsGV1xcdwvnVjoZv1JrfQOrJkkP6aP8T5uJiLWBX//JUZHQn14r9hXzn 5T6g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681217431; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mmK5pGm2kd0TsILqcFZD5eO2553kCSZsjzg6c7Q0Dus=; b=hMQKchH++o3q/awUTlD3M1436/U7HKBZK9XySQ09zXEOSbFxM1AQ1XxMDFPddAsVgj 4M6dE5WTnx2ui09sjE8L64GGf41WvsZ7/x+siZgLzY92kG4FvSXxH6DM9CznFFfENJ0+ BHAu7TPP6s/fRWnb5pDjAa8umwY/JmHkyylsMmOzsPW+dc3rjFUtwbq3hw8Gqvujx3lO 0xn10QHNia+dJdgcjdcuMH312yeAlq96B+ENnM4Xfcm/8XXvo8iE6drG3P1V1t9KwB2X 2uSCORap9DbVydR0TVbtJ+WrBdmLYa2WKjAl9I0J+d2BbfcZc9ioA8v9VyX9YWFXl+IR hsEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dNVq/9uRjOKai80nV1d0jxYMpKbMxJDFkum3xNhUyhLBHeI9Y2 2BARx9g6b4rRzlZwjJ9j9q4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZtK/p+7mXBFbxEbSokiKTTwyceEQZ9UnVPPLNIw8wdzbCMrruep/SglgbhSSlbRl1SWGiGsQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1378:b0:2ef:eb5f:862c with SMTP id q24-20020a056000137800b002efeb5f862cmr6391036wrz.59.1681217431182; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 05:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n5-20020adfe345000000b002efb139ce72sm11439394wrj.36.2023.04.11.05.50.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 11 Apr 2023 05:50:30 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:40:05 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:52:36 +0100 Message-ID: <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora >> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , >> 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen >> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:02:48 +0100 >>=20 >> So the final patch that I'm proposing for emacs 29 is attached. M-x >> package-update-all fixes those cases and correctly finds and updates 4 >> packages to their newest released versions, exactly as it should. >>=20 >> (eglot eldoc jsonrpc verilog-mode) >>=20 >> Eli, what do you think? > > I'd prefer it to go to master, not to emacs-29. The problem is not > grave enough and OTOH the workaround is simple enough. So changing > package.el in such non-trivial ways is not something I'd like to risk > now. Please reconsider. If we do this, than Emacs 29 users will be almost locked out of upgrading Eglot and a lot of other built-in packages. I'll have to teach people that workaround in the manual, where such workarounds don't really belong. Note that Eglot moved from ELPA to core, but it had (and has) many users on Emacs 26, 27 and 28. Eglot is getting regular new features in master, the bundled Emacs 29 version is now already pretty "old". When migrating to Emacs 29, these users will expect to keep being able to update to the latest version, and will likely be baffled that it doesn't work as smoothly as it used to. M-x package-update and M-x package-update-all are new in Emacs 29. They're buggy, so why ship them buggy? The change I'm proposing it not really "non-trivial". I can walk you or anybody through the code, or write tests if that would improve the outlook. >> Who is package.el's main maintainer? Everyone? >> Lars added M-x package-update (for Emacs 29) so I'm pinging him as well. > > I think it's mostly Philip and Stefan. Let's hear from them, to see if there's some kind of subtlety I might have missed. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 13:55:28 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 17:55:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38138 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmIDI-0004fa-1u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:55:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54806) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmIDE-0004fJ-9B for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:55:26 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmID7-0007by-0M; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:55:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=GpyvUjG7W0YUfyPtMr/E03Fvcxa4TGE/NJtgTFCZocQ=; b=ZQpTUgFl0ZQDWfTwtTE4 bAd1VxEZsR7/UZUEz3a34xDQhaS4GUbPqlY5vHtU2+K6iMqfVzuqveY3phPM0empAyJ7NC0PSb5IT YpNt8k8hpse/fPur35TDM8BckkE8rbj2qth5Sk/0TzjVaBTPocdlfCHPr4L2SH6Xl/b3nmC3e2ti1 1kIstE12EBWMjyj9mje49frXyE2lDWpB+uwMhjZRUP/Z7sE+cTne7a4SiSkCbx0IQq702deVXof5e 5PTtklIkCelgDOKNzCRAsY3ZXpc7sEK86IXnnx4f8bG2JHi7ko5ZaK58WVj1s2m4GpMFCTyYCOKua HSpfI7/DaybmRw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmID6-0008Tz-GF; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:55:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 20:55:58 +0300 Message-Id: <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28g?= =?utf-8?B?VMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:52:36 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:52:36 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Eli, what do you think? > > > > I'd prefer it to go to master, not to emacs-29. The problem is not > > grave enough and OTOH the workaround is simple enough. So changing > > package.el in such non-trivial ways is not something I'd like to risk > > now. > > Please reconsider. If we do this, than Emacs 29 users will be almost > locked out of upgrading Eglot and a lot of other built-in packages. > I'll have to teach people that workaround in the manual, where such > workarounds don't really belong. OK, I looked closer at the patch and the code involved in this, and also re-read this discussion. I cannot agree with installing your patch, as submitted, on the emacs-29 branch, sorry. It modifies code that affects "normal" invocations of package-update, and also numerous other functions in package.el (via the change in package--updateable-packages), in ways that are very hard for me to audit. It is hard to audit because there are parts of it that read like some kind of "black magic": > + (nonbuiltin (assq package package-alist))) Why is the return value of assq the sign that the package is "nonbuiltin"? > + (cond (nonbuiltin > + (let ((desc (cadr nonbuiltin))) > + (if (package-vc-p desc) > + (package-vc-update desc) > + (package-delete desc 'force) > + (package-install package 'dont-select)))) > + (t > + (package-install > + (cadr (assq package package-archive-contents))))))) Why the different way of calling package-install for "built-in" packages? > - (package-desc-version (cadr elt)) > + (if (vectorp (cdr elt)) > + (aref (cdr elt) 0) > + (package-desc-version (cadr elt))) What is the significance of the (vectorp (cdr elt)) test? > - (package-vc-p (cadr (assq (car elt) package-alist))))) > - package-alist))) > + (and (consp (cdr elt)) > + (package-desc-p (cadr elt)) > + (package-vc-p (cadr elt))))) > + (seq-union package-alist package--builtins > + (lambda (a b) (eq (car a) (car b))))))) What is the significance of the (consp (cdr elt)) test? And why do we need to add package--builtins to the list? How am I supposed to assess the safety of this patch, given all this semi-obfuscated code, and given that I'm not the every-day maintainer of package.el and am not familiar with all the quirks of its code? (It is quite possible that this obfuscated nature of the code is not your fault, but is caused by how package.el is implemented. In which case I hope that we could clean up the code of package.el on master to allow updating :core packages more seamlessly and with simpler code.) OTOH, the workaround you described in https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62720#5 doesn't sound too awful to me, given that this problem exists for a while and is not specific to Eglot. However, if we still want to have a better solution that will be safe enough to be installed on emacs-29, I can suggest two alternatives: . add a prefix argument to package-update, which would mean to update a package unconditionally, even if it is a built-in or of an older version, and make this special case be handled by code that is completely independent of the code we have in package-update now, so that the "normal" case is unaffected; or . add a new command, say, package-update-core-package, which will then be used only for :core packages OK? > M-x package-update and M-x package-update-all are new in Emacs 29. They might be new, but package-update was virtually unmodified since a year ago, during which time it was used by many people, and so its current code can be considered to be well tested. Your modifications are by contrast completely new. > The change I'm proposing it not really "non-trivial". I can walk > you or anybody through the code, or write tests if that would > improve the outlook. See above. Given the problems I mentioned, I'm allowed to doubt that you yourself understand the changes well enough to vouch for them. And even if you did vouch, my gray hair won't believe you. So I prefer to go for much safer, if slightly less clean, changes. I hope one of the two alternatives I suggested will be acceptable. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 14:31:29 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 18:31:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38186 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmIm9-0005bF-02 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:31:29 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f44.google.com ([209.85.210.44]:33724) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmIm6-0005b0-QE for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:31:27 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f44.google.com with SMTP id i15-20020a9d610f000000b006a11f365d13so3579445otj.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:31:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1681237881; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Ng3osF+I1nPw+caK/E46PyJxyO5Aia1ChtOrsf+4kxs=; b=OnS0BG53k7GQlY6r9qEbtdpa3jGYUtAFzSKNE/r1LDvdav1aJz2MFuizlYAEwzX06n qZ8UdolQQXxM3IscLTfIZdBD0hAkxheVeuVe6VK9VJMKspalu8k7AWXMToMFQ6LnDS9O V1tqj/0MYSPiZqS49XbRFqL111g5RrhP6z1tgtE8HpQJ8sq7MMG7anwjzPY5JMV0zTUN 7GkM23lgrpvFt/Yrs9sewUTGQJNPn34rNcYj5JTT1/lpWHyTz+Um6k7ClVDr2KOnHeyS 4JDFskwX48GCXHNX7MdefOyxy070vKW73q5/+rLp0Q1KXMWTFIuxb5/djWQxBDHVsGVz wfOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681237881; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Ng3osF+I1nPw+caK/E46PyJxyO5Aia1ChtOrsf+4kxs=; b=eOxLjK3H37e+22K5azZfGb7KDUMIEgywiwmC+NBGYCEiVH207YCVhuuaJV1ugGOdSR /UQmuu08n3CHCdTHriNV8o16ebu+jKmQ7e3a4GdDPU6uTYDn7HN1UsWXiiwyORHJqUNk Vat01Atytba67okA72EHBRI+qI5XYAWbgfISdUGRR+lh0o7liVUM7qlC/N+WChomCPzk 7dIbqb+LIE017p+vqS7LH5C2aVIiVDEcvefhrcbbpa6EusPVaLv0e5yy/RUlIkAedOmu mMH9l8z8EOg0fn1njK/XjyxHWOYGNeB4vqZQjZc3M/R9qgtFHQhAxHpUn5KeRYR1S8Q9 rZhw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dZn/HIT+4DnrPzdAYzrxoRGWMU+AjoIdAVPUn9XDo0zn6qAYFF dLYIEJgmNKDuj625uZ7Nw578MVga9B9ZOb0bh+Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bGWLuYOTXB6ot0CC8FO1jLpqDyI2ZAbQ7kVYvPRsdl1+Zjs4aKE1lpNp0x047g8LxpczTllb37ktCxSHJB2RY= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7f07:0:b0:6a4:1662:8527 with SMTP id j7-20020a9d7f07000000b006a416628527mr158534otq.4.1681237880957; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:31:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:31:09 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 6:55=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Please reconsider. If we do this, than Emacs 29 users will be almost > > locked out of upgrading Eglot and a lot of other built-in packages. > > I'll have to teach people that workaround in the manual, where such > > workarounds don't really belong. > > OK, I looked closer at the patch and the code involved in this, and > also re-read this discussion. I cannot agree with installing your > patch, as submitted, on the emacs-29 branch, sorry. It modifies code > that affects "normal" invocations of package-update, and also numerous > other functions in package.el (via the change in > package--updateable-packages), I don't understand. package--updateable-packages is an internal helper that only has two users, both of which I tested. That's not "numerous". > in ways that are very hard for me to > audit. It is hard to audit because there are parts of it that read > like some kind of "black magic": > > > + (nonbuiltin (assq package package-alist))) > > Why is the return value of assq the sign that the package is > "nonbuiltin"? Because package-alist only contains packages that were installed by the user explicitly. > > > + (cond (nonbuiltin > > + (let ((desc (cadr nonbuiltin))) > > + (if (package-vc-p desc) > > + (package-vc-update desc) > > + (package-delete desc 'force) > > + (package-install package 'dont-select)))) > > + (t > > + (package-install > > + (cadr (assq package package-archive-contents))))))) > > Why the different way of calling package-install for "built-in" > packages? 1. Because built-in packages cannot be deleted. 2. Because built-in packages aren't described the same way that explicitly installed packages. The description of a built-in package is much poorer in information. To make package-install work with a built-in package, you have to give it the richer description of the package that you want to install, fresh from package-archive-contents. > > - (package-desc-version (cadr elt)) > > + (if (vectorp (cdr elt)) > > + (aref (cdr elt) 0) > > + (package-desc-version (cadr elt))) > > What is the significance of the (vectorp (cdr elt)) test? It tells if the current element being iterated has, in its cdr an object of type package--bi-desc. That struct, is implemented via a vector, and so, unfortunately has no recognizer predicate. > > - (package-vc-p (cadr (assq (car elt) package-alist))))) > > - package-alist))) > > + (and (consp (cdr elt)) > > + (package-desc-p (cadr elt)) > > + (package-vc-p (cadr elt))))) > > + (seq-union package-alist package--builtins > > + (lambda (a b) (eq (car a) (car b))))))) > > What is the significance of the (consp (cdr elt)) test? And why do we > need to add package--builtins to the list? package-alist's form is ((SYM PACKAGE-DESC)...) while package--builtins is ((SYM . PACKAGE--BI-DESC) ...) > How am I supposed to assess the safety of this patch, given all this > semi-obfuscated code, and given that I'm not the every-day maintainer > of package.el and am not familiar with all the quirks of its code? > (It is quite possible that this obfuscated nature of the code is not > your fault, but is caused by how package.el is implemented. In which > case I hope that we could clean up the code of package.el on master to > allow updating :core packages more seamlessly and with simpler code.) Yes, quite so. That was my point to Philip earlier: this code is awful to read, but when you read it, you'll notice that it's not really rocket science going on there. That's why I think this is simple enough patch to go for emacs 29. I do hope Stefan and Philip can chime in. Do note that if this change goes to master and not to emacs-29, people will only be effectively testing the new functionality when the emacs-30 branch is cut. > OTOH, the workaround you described in > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D62720#5 > > doesn't sound too awful to me, given that this problem exists for a > while and is not specific to Eglot. As I explained, I don't think there were ever :core packages as popular as Eglot. There is also the fact that many people are using non-package.el package managers, which is a maintenance burden for me. I always recommend package.el, the official package manager, since I don't have the resources to learn about those other package managers (some of which have brought problems in the past). That workaround is awful to use, BTW. It's quite slow, (M-x package-list-packages takes ages, like almost a minute here). Then you have to C-s and find a million false positives eglot-something packages and then you have to know the `i` and `x` shortcuts, which aren't really something Emacs newcomers know about. On the other hand, M-x package-update gives you a completion list of the packages you have already. > See above. Given the problems I mentioned, I'm allowed to doubt that > you yourself understand the changes well enough to vouch for them. > And even if you did vouch, my gray hair won't believe you. So I > prefer to go for much safer, if slightly less clean, changes. I hope > one of the two alternatives I suggested will be acceptable. If this change can't go into emacs-29, I think it's better to add an M-x eglot-update to eglot.el. That's discoverable, easy to remember and the absolute safest, as package.el is absolutely unchanged. (defun eglot-update () "Update Eglot to latest version." (interactive) (unless package-archive-contents (package-refresh-contents)) (package-install (assq 'eglot package-archive-contents))) Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 14:51:50 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 18:51:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38221 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmJ5q-0006FV-4k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:51:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55548) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmJ5o-0006FH-Fh for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:51:48 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmJ5i-00033u-Ql; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:51:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=VuHRi3NHLpxmzNlZj5Lj35nZAymndkZxrf2YLLlGy+c=; b=CgzCtSmruRvEPl2G8j2e 9ev+sbyhPQYWYfiKtVOyC2hVIS4g23GoTvy8NsAuK+lQ38rqFp2U5yTop+dZlx8yGLmfaPhk6Y5ee dyYm5TvJfkTGnm8pkkeCmj9vI0Qj5CTgGte0wWXdbdbMIKl53W88ah8+scH1YYnsdZa77VWvtI9TP VNchmfgxg2szo42QihtCmsW16kz0XaWiffsCygBH8vD6CYZe1A8l3pe9BhDTnvvRL4QMRkeTDf6Yc NYPmUw+nnJiCtcQXz7ZqukvgE4a7hy4KHBabvWCU/tKW2b3EOaUuGToWUAMPMYVbx6Hk8lpV+rd7g d8XdBALzn2DI7w==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmJ5i-00013X-A6; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:51:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:52:25 +0300 Message-Id: <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:31:09 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:31:09 +0100 > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > > > See above. Given the problems I mentioned, I'm allowed to doubt that > > you yourself understand the changes well enough to vouch for them. > > And even if you did vouch, my gray hair won't believe you. So I > > prefer to go for much safer, if slightly less clean, changes. I hope > > one of the two alternatives I suggested will be acceptable. > > If this change can't go into emacs-29, I think it's better to add > an M-x eglot-update to eglot.el. That's the worst of all worlds. What is the problem with the two possible solutions I suggested? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 14:53:42 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 18:53:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38228 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmJ7e-0006In-M4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:53:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45402) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmJ7d-0006Ia-3N for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:53:41 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmJ7X-0003Rd-Gv; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:53:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=+h2jsI1MrtBQvxoeLKy0JyirsSJyVkQyBQBy92YLHbI=; b=DaNH47fTMSWJ mOBz3D6jHFRi1RGH2jXFaXyGU4iooWqIxN8Brro0rHONGzvd+f01vctYICeg66h2t43TgIYZdbPtA Y4HLDSkfn5darIfjBVlHeWARGQpSHjiV14+QFLVwudgxitBh90dqBl9z9AL9OmwJkAgNK6Y8FrTaU SSK5/bGrrpTDRLYrcmQ0lNzEyEfpI68nWFmcCfflGSkTv4YeW6yXfK1xXBjfDJ1op2kzDPGd01biS nBNU7kvt46ub4BCpEsM8exUWch7x1QGOm2onO4CkOBwFASzxiDAtIofG9qO7POTuHl69ChHONvD9a R9GLKlG44zm1a7pPIJDRdA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmJ7W-0001GZ-Km; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:53:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:54:18 +0300 Message-Id: <83zg7e8d2d.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca In-Reply-To: <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Tue, 11 Apr 2023 20:55:58 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) Btw, why, when I do "M-x list-packages RET", I see Eglot in red with Status "incompat"? If I press RET on its name, I see Package eglot is incompatible. Status: Incompatible because it depends on uninstallable packages. Why is that? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 15:44:34 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 19:44:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38305 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmJus-0007at-0D for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:44:34 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:48044) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmJup-0007ae-Fc for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:44:32 -0400 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3279180DCA; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:44:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F283E803B4; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:44:24 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1681242265; bh=pvZ6K3bVIk4ir6PlWIAcDeQk+FJzE5SEovq/8JgqehM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=R8IuszFfkHtpLC2YKvZdjSj+ZSdKMkmLyH0mkLUxP7GfyrTboLTZurPVp3k+5fhMK lVvxlRq3Yr8wL73yMIBMB+BakFZ/tbUg1PG8Cw5XXvbwiKC53ktZYJfNRpkp/PbHaI xq35aS4x2/OaTbXGhIIBKxnqSpqFRi3NP2E7fvILGXXmc/PeVe0ArGeRaJQdewqy/c GzpYzHV2PooAT2Pe8mgy3lCO17ycFeM51X5HpzaUOFkcJNOMcyD/yociGXT5f9d5lY eAitKXb3QvU+gyX374ABwhVr5dN3J9IEAlOQoD8GsXQLniqby4nO2RoRJjmgI5tAl3 9aZA90NDWehcQ== Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33779120270; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:44:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vo?= =?windows-1252?Q?ra=22's?= message of "Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:02:48 +0100") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:44:22 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.023 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , eliz@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: -3.3 (---) > 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". Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 16:06:20 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 20:06:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38346 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmKFw-0008NM-44 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:06:20 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f178.google.com ([209.85.167.178]:37831) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmKFr-0008N0-PC for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:06:18 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f178.google.com with SMTP id bm45so564473oib.4 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:06:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1681243570; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=59hoB098uDhso++qJfaQXLWonZbB+911XOC9/46M08I=; b=D9vu232JVGORLTvJMSOhPtnTyxFKAeFaiHykOdbKL8AayOTxgcMnbgf6gXEr/AIBoh DGnDcdHzr4pxHreUhx4g5cfqUru6ylpvUyB8Fo8HluhuJsbQ6ZqdnsEykSmARuT3KzQe /uzVC/EMGuLjXOkAnDjku27PjF1AVpXlWwJBjqiLp1CtyGOfKzEviXaf9N1f1ZOFN+TT tG7t8uhJgLATFZaVMkXIyvtUNuOyAl9+p49gpbvPsHxQ96q5JnphbAF+Rd9HZBZdqWm+ biKe+3S8j5LpprDgek69D1YPNdiqD7nFLx4GiZ2Vyft/nbEF+TjDwzK1+otYvvrAOHLe 23jg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681243570; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=59hoB098uDhso++qJfaQXLWonZbB+911XOC9/46M08I=; b=B1L7l9T+ioXIIj0l0Eqrj5Uo5aqOAT4KeIFLchXgjzXBC3c+Xg/AO48jENzdIYHTrz 4sWboo4hGDb4zPOL/3FJJomVXB0itfE26ZjKv6UTwvEatoLqE2z/XLpPHINsWxu3Lrzg 8/rGC9jp+p+QrtIenxIba+xK9XXZ0qtmu9LIgZ7520TOGAAyeAj6s2wRXgKfm+u/7n5R HGYtje0FP4MxprjAe/cEmSiCgTX6lQfsvi5qmjRWOWkv1Kvk4saF+Gdb4wNZ9LVkoFXk zGGkZA3ShrQxS80cXrd8HbfGDVnAFcKz1FrJtGMegctfjWdDCBjXpN/kv7q6cP1o8eht R+ag== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cfEgpvfggVlz73SShMdV/KkVDYS03bxMS5eXo5U2XH2r+vwHdB n+k0Fg1ZmSf0sBRHOEyCVHI26n/5ema/LzCSw8E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350baJMvIJsZTCUbfkncVsZHkbZNccWK6Cy0FrkZaYrXJ5Q53F9QDanZWveQn/Urpvrv6eakJ09eWa/o4ef9tbvs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:2195:b0:386:a109:57c8 with SMTP id be21-20020a056808219500b00386a10957c8mr3764108oib.5.1681243570138; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:06:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:05:58 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Stefan Monnier Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c7745a05f9150550" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii 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 (-) --000000000000c7745a05f9150550 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 20:44 Stefan Monnier wrote= : > > 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". Can't argue against feelings :) Jo=C3=A3o > > --000000000000c7745a05f9150550 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 20:44 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> Thanks.=C2=A0 I've just tested &= #39;M-x package-update-all' with my patch.=C2=A0 It
> updates the built-in and the manually installed packages that can be > updated.=C2=A0 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 uncomfortabl= e
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 tha= t
the first upgrade of a `:core` package from GNU ELPA feels to me more
like an "install" than an "upgrade".
=

Can't argue against= feelings :)

Jo=C3=A3o

--000000000000c7745a05f9150550-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 16:08:52 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 20:08:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38352 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmKIN-0008SC-Me for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:08:52 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f50.google.com ([209.85.210.50]:33534) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmKIL-0008Ru-2U for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:08:50 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f50.google.com with SMTP id i15-20020a9d610f000000b006a11f365d13so3720942otj.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:08:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681243723; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mufq+HY4bI6rVEvYbH7jJwFKBlognjT+37l2OADxltg=; b=mtUc8wVmMD6gocccyGX068GQpM4SRF+a13nFllJUVRlO7lVOrlzjggDKEdc3DJlCTa 0k96Q3AI3JT2/Z2zfT6awf17GvO1S5tUPuLe85nL95fWYB6Oipatpw4I9iqgXxXy9g/w phSHQcXg32/ufiB3h8Yhw7A10FieQngcB+BA47KK0YbxjEEdS5eofRmmRN8f0eBNOSQZ mHSRVEXR86AdVpwitdT6/lZpCX0jInp56Od7xIoe958IF5e1quaN1Is/SOqzyWha3IN0 /Ot11dfK3k4XHEWQGEG+a9XY6o3anMuLJdNiVGnp6hebUNgzyQ9oxscIp879uRa/KuIZ 4LsQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681243723; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=mufq+HY4bI6rVEvYbH7jJwFKBlognjT+37l2OADxltg=; b=V7l2KsRNDYwkFXBF1T7NQkN796aAD35o1H+uJdAAqRCFX9fC4r9ky+Nziy8F+thepv yV31ZsAIv8zvJdWGdecT/N6kMf3nxwZMpbkORwKXdRt/vGrqF72WE/mrzGGfwxwxuT4u +u/j1SfpgpZ7h2XoiTfCAGyLgVQuqux376+NUXSuixVxpmwf2KhCT40JhkQnT6YMCkGp fSr5wBH2jrrfjHgu7NQ0x7V59JzdexQLpmxd+G9+X2ViFK7BBmeibuAibI4O3HR+FA66 qbFHqgkLT2JdgtuYQN6OU66tWYNAHJXDpx7Yyei0Y/xtSyRMHUCmHDcaoKFiNS7VVJq/ 28MQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fc5kGauimLnaaKFbWp+o2oa/dGuQC54AVtaIa93dXeMqWf+rYu h092NRt3dRTPzNPI7gGPdnH1sYS3auSODTpRBl8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZGQWOUpwDFaZWM8dRsnNbP+7a6xsuTYUVDgIQ2bcZ9uG1h1z+as0sPCFGIbCKF/R5POe7SNTf6zgS/NaeceWs= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6a04:0:b0:6a4:1459:d393 with SMTP id g4-20020a9d6a04000000b006a41459d393mr83010otn.4.1681243723458; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:08:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:08:32 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eaeb9605f9150ea8" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier 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 (-) --000000000000eaeb9605f9150ea8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 19:51 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:31:09 +0100 > > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org= , > > > larsi@gnus.org > > > > > See above. Given the problems I mentioned, I'm allowed to doubt that > > > you yourself understand the changes well enough to vouch for them. > > > And even if you did vouch, my gray hair won't believe you. So I > > > prefer to go for much safer, if slightly less clean, changes. I hope > > > one of the two alternatives I suggested will be acceptable. > > > > If this change can't go into emacs-29, I think it's better to add > > an M-x eglot-update to eglot.el. > > That's the worst of all worlds. > Why? It's the safest option. Absolutely no package.el regression possible, and doesn't solve a problem where you don't think I've exists. > > What is the problem with the two possible solutions I suggested? > They are incongruent and not very user friendly IMO. Jo=C3=A3o > --000000000000eaeb9605f9150ea8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 19:51 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora <joaotavora@gmail.com>= ;
> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:31:09 +0100
> Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 627= 20@debbugs.gnu.org,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0larsi@gnus.org
>
> > See above.=C2=A0 Given the problems I mentioned, I'm allowed = to doubt that
> > you yourself understand the changes well enough to vouch for them= .
> > And even if you did vouch, my gray hair won't believe you.=C2= =A0 So I
> > prefer to go for much safer, if slightly less clean, changes.=C2= =A0 I hope
> > one of the two alternatives I suggested will be acceptable.
>
> If this change can't go into emacs-29, I think it's better to = add
> an M-x eglot-update to eglot.el.

That's the worst of all worlds.

Why? It's the safest option. Absolut= ely no package.el regression possible, and doesn't solve a problem wher= e you don't think I've exists.

What is the problem with the two possible solutions I suggested?

They are in= congruent and not very user friendly IMO.

=
Jo=C3=A3o
--000000000000eaeb9605f9150ea8-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 16:26:03 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 20:26:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38357 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmKZ1-0000Q5-IO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:26:03 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f180.google.com ([209.85.167.180]:33718) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmKYx-0000Pa-A0 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:26:02 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f180.google.com with SMTP id m2so5867275oiw.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:25:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681244753; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Qa2Bnyw71soFVS3qwAIY3HelbxRS0odKG+6JS16n58I=; b=iEF2vm3Qz/oOE58da/fR+mgVvTQ/YyIw2nmRfGAJtkKSoUZGIOjvvByAhSJqBcK7Qm kf5tT3SPuV1mZL3BO24xDq+m9AqffiA9znpsdWEEJpJUdZS/BuEBttsLCjLXsrKZfKND ZATsSxk8tFDAatzShCLP2srm1yfqDtO7C/nPeCCG2oXwTlCalIR16cAExgs5TkXdos/M +jEIbZtI8teSx7ehaRalXMNW25BQ3J6qGLBHUjOkMT+yjYJBYKl3ZTahv3zvZFHeln1e 3Ao1JKQP8EPKL7TyntqQyp1zvxueot8PgmMw96KhPy8ZbUJPxr0RYuiH6AMS6qLwcu9B 8/AQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681244753; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Qa2Bnyw71soFVS3qwAIY3HelbxRS0odKG+6JS16n58I=; b=N0FA9BKELS0BAzmrzd8oEA57kAFVzsZwA8mqIPJ0Pn2O3eEPLX2N0Jl/pazMm2Ngmh qBISjSK8oYEYIXUxNlxBot4yO1fYhz1a4qcQPW6CdyRpW9GAjkZ7w5rCuI0fhYJvMCZC M3mcWtMAeT+eEVWFeMcPISUUW+whPTFCjt4mdYDT3OeCFyqT0sG/c8zDPgMJgrZOURVn H3n4pJpkPTiVv+q+loWGk+7w/QTizmEyQeJR7voPy6hjzfkAZXrqDJSlo3FjzRuVogtX AXZbRETQXFLZk2pV0cZQ5kG6MZLwhzeciy48wj5qBtIjd4TRxLnJknk+sd2cyYJokcAh hAsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cdXuli5dRHkBTa+gFP9oe9qBVhF8iJTMAfe6rsfzjymn3lNHf/ 6wzavPNgSqW1VQheQx8z6qEizYN8VSFmWdABA18= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZBeIjYLVtDvfxXhcOJUumoqooonEN2Xz7ohfrS2NN3I/TriWIvtXc7luBuBQ8dMuB8kRFrICH2T+E+MCkiAgs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:3007:b0:38b:c0aa:4870 with SMTP id ay7-20020a056808300700b0038bc0aa4870mr1720003oib.5.1681244753499; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:25:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:25:41 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000501c3705f9154c72" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier 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 (-) --000000000000501c3705f9154c72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable LOn Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 21:08 Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora w= rote: > . >> > >> > If this change can't go into emacs-29, I think it's better to add >> > an M-x eglot-update to eglot.el. >> >> That's the worst of all worlds. >> > > Why? It's the safest option. Absolutely no package.el regression possible= , > and doesn't solve a problem where you don't think I've exists. > Sorry, I meant to write "where you don't think one exists". > >> What is the problem with the two possible solutions I suggested? >> > > They are incongruent and not very user friendly IMO. > Admittedly, eglot-update is also incongruent, of course, but at least that problem is confined to a single package. Jo=C3=A3o > --000000000000501c3705f9154c72 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

LOn Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 21:08 Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora= <joaotavora@gmail.com> w= rote:
.
>
> If this change can't go into emacs-29, I think it's better to = add
> an M-x eglot-update to eglot.el.

That's the worst of all worlds.

Why? It's the safest option. Absolut= ely no package.el regression possible, and doesn't solve a problem wher= e you don't think I've exists.

Sorry, I meant to write "where= you don't think one exists".

What is the problem with the two possible solutions I suggested?

They are in= congruent and not very user friendly IMO.

Admittedly, eglot-update is also= incongruent, of course, but at least that problem is confined to a single = package.

Jo=C3=A3o
=
--000000000000501c3705f9154c72-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 16:28:47 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 20:28:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38361 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmKbf-0000Td-5l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:28:47 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:39503) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmKbc-0000TP-8F for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:28:45 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1842e278605so11310826fac.6 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:28:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681244918; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=He5chomqkGh6+1Ydb4M6VhemE1GkD4baMQX512Zo6fA=; b=oFe8Bt6QuKq/rpr5V4PeVSi9js4/CsWQYmhTsDySW+xjNXCkdM0kyLNyeXpvmcBSmA V6BD3X+Hf9pFHSw3cm9uf1LjpeXBgAI8tS5Dide5+o8OuI1f1SZy85pjfISm7JOnufE5 UGmPt9yI7SEH9JrU0EIxAivF/kcIqx/lonJHI7N70D/g6GBBnkHdGUs/WJmLwS/0vxxP mRzzeQrkA9hD4uUP8yb6oeML8A0Ei6tAj5LqhwdHK4aHk93BwrtxdmuK+OZXBHSTN7VD C6RygrBV6ttmdaP9rPSNFhZgjVF9u7rIRkp0aZmE0uAswoSjuwNORpEYap+QYvvplOE/ +aew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681244918; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=He5chomqkGh6+1Ydb4M6VhemE1GkD4baMQX512Zo6fA=; b=hfiF3SduUGnAgulgMgvppUWF/dSkup9/MU/DD2RU7/V8FjEiQQoRStkOnENxsALZGm XGRfqX+gkZBo4SGImLncZkMBfcrcg0SSP42O6rgqTKJ6hPnODyOuzTqfzKhvYDQAzyTe Z647lXwiZL9PZ2udNUfeJXTQqISwODYgTO6La2NtRSS0ataDUWKPZchXQrZcdvk/6X8s SPWKShjkBye375rI7QvfmwWxeTsswjCKgTMeCgWOGvi1u6ZwhVlBstV9TgK9nn8ukTnP wsc/56zlPg11EID+ncIvNTjVpsxx1K9HwTwwdJPXa0o6mVDZWzwb0ULAa7An0WO5gzup GRSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dXmj+HCdITsIIkibUERGjNCLxPkVWT7+8QSDB4r1EiNyCQmb+A SK6/6dPLC8AcXamtJBoJ+FlWDUc07IxeQqzARkI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aEph4XXAZb+i6cYm13Cjo8rdXB1aUQ+jyFNMGGWESmamJNsrJbBRPBYxl4TdvCW6YbQfeL5FxjLFSqNhoBzbs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:7012:b0:183:fa09:d20b with SMTP id u18-20020a056870701200b00183fa09d20bmr58487oae.5.1681244918671; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:28:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <83zg7e8d2d.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83zg7e8d2d.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:28:26 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000286ea705f915561a" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen , "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier 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 (-) --000000000000286ea705f915561a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 19:53 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Btw, why, when I do "M-x list-packages RET", I see Eglot in red with > Status "incompat"? If I press RET on its name, I see > > Package eglot is incompatible. > > Status: Incompatible because it depends on uninstallable packages. > > Why is that? > No idea. Is this with our without my patch? Jo=C3=A3o > --000000000000286ea705f915561a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 19:53 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
Btw, why, when I do "M-x list-packages RET", I see Eglot= in red with
Status "incompat"?=C2=A0 If I press RET on its name, I see

=C2=A0 Package eglot is incompatible.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Status: Incompatible because it depends on unins= tallable packages.

Why is that?

No idea. Is this with our without my patch?

Jo=C3=A3o
--000000000000286ea705f915561a-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 17:14:20 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 21:14:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38394 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmLJk-0001kk-Ii for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:14:20 -0400 Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.229]:59695) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmLJf-0001kS-W9 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:14:18 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028F65821A8; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:14:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:14:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681247649; x=1681251249; bh=/YImSrv8FEj5NPeCzXgw+Hot838nKp+7afc nuKMeA4A=; b=gasKJUrgCHCydQryQbJ7JBzjTm+r+dw/bDzEdF6ustV5k9rDOsE VGQguUM9P3El+BnM5uo8NLDVkrIINsv3brbfIuypPS3ePEip/WMUitRhxpfyYrf9 JSSVWhCL+iREAmxl4wmtgbyZpV43aW5XqHUeQup+ALydJNmAm7yApIx6SbPISb4N 0U54bbrRWf8LmRaug78359ZVpO1+ltG5xKjw5iNmHx4ccZtvgaBcx1UuYEulH8Jr RJJaAxD4QEFpUbJpjKs+kG5/5uk45klZ0D2JgYl5zMdiB5Y6f9G7LFlPavBjubpD bmQFEXt8fpwNjBCbmDxBoDcMPlU8aF9tPZA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681247649; x=1681251249; bh=/YImSrv8FEj5NPeCzXgw+Hot838nKp+7afc nuKMeA4A=; b=kJTqBcsJ4Dc0G2XKOHhsbrFfYzmM2YxSVG98snC+Jk7ApXPnIRI e/iaEzBdLjkfveDhorCtbuQ40G0iqD1XHafBwd11eUjHxsUQeTGVSQLhAOIuEo6+ JBNvg83QdSD/W8IO/pkDAdfAalOOTLNuazEpKPGaozsde+oPiaQJnl6/yRoPvGS7 +K4UAhDD9odki+U6q0Q0YYagZC0a4bhoUCnNHLIAKd8cYvgd2MBvahXloP0QBgAC MMlgkaWgNJ1oUcjKif5vEw6ymbSFpqT9TVx9WdJNI39OQwZ/B18m1YIlmcCjB3bs lbyMqjxPfTc/6XT/wzKwwt83kIMaMg3KRFg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdekgedgudeitdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpefhffehleejffegffeugefhkeektdffgfehjedvgeejtedtudehueffgffg feejheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <301ec075-c5f6-092c-b789-175c8cc64e1e@gutov.dev> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:14:06 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= , Philip Kaludercic References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , eliz@gnu.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier 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: -2.1 (--) On 11/04/2023 14:02, João Távora wrote: > Philip Kaludercic writes: > >> Will this not affect `package-update-all'? I don't if we want that the >> command installs all packages from ELPA that it can find. > 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. On a related note, do you know whether we upgrade the built-in packages when the user presses 'U' in the list-packages buffer? Using the command package-menu-mark-upgrades, that is. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 11 17:36:56 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2023 21:36:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38420 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmLfc-0002Hs-D4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:36:56 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:41525) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmLfY-0002Hc-LA for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:36:55 -0400 Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1CAE110011B; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E8C9010009E; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:36:45 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1681249005; bh=9WNRustd3ki47R+wUAaJqeFt8/NCvR6kDrHiPuctBTU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Ve15KylOyJ51K2IF71V6rSBp/SPq6N9GBZt7SuMrhkOGSYMDY6QfNbUtcZvUIWXnF rUBkc2mkUmifg+2r5nndCpN0AiJ0MPJ75FtDd2rNh73mktD+aXZpW+XAI4NVuw6DJC JNhkRJoe8dcJ/fdkkBrgL4RDyYm/MEHxUREvMaeQI5+esSTK0wWfPEzOW0DzumYQH/ tmNI9cyBOItERPxKIsi0ktfEBojrFCVX8z2kzgB/PHjUxoQ+iIoD2QZpUlgUDZTwKV 4YtbtQrnRoYZV2Ie43eLgzcJv1l02A7PHt+4XZwpcZyWmNFb7WJgKo/OyiAFGV0yfK DBAue3f58vXeQ== Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1314120263; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:36:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vora=22's?= message of "Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:05:58 +0100") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:36:45 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.041 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii 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: -3.3 (---) >> 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". > Can't argue against feelings :) What can I say: I just know I'm right! More seriously, I agree it's not a very strong/compelling argument. I just wanted to mention it, in case I'm not the only weirdo. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 01:44:25 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 05:44:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38745 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTHN-0007EF-8Z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:44:25 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33494) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTHI-0007Dx-6f for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:44:23 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTHC-0000f6-LW; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:44:14 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=SGubweVSL5/gx1TS1nVOJehIhkM58v5DQvJKqINk+6U=; b=S8KKtZw6brMN audkhv6Fuc2IPwXNWVWij11lUPN0TevYg1MAXmfpNHx9P76K18DkW+sA7DkvrdouetSKswJ8tp9+c k9LpdO1RVJQnlowZb4HTWtxLHsPsJfnzukrn8n3v0u2r2W3AkUvv9/HMaJUz/hQYPDckwSnoWXqbx vFxDkKrV87xEwaL9PMpmk/IxgRfpeVNq3II1PgTGen9MfU8f7wd6AZy9ulMmULNWBCBEQ+Y0SZMLn eDBxZU7B/YD6WLD+QOGdSp94bSPvueSFCOaz/JlYlDf3zJmJN2AxeNN4WD/ekmVvLc2o/pF40aeUW ymvEGYtmAtoIYptuqfQQkg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTHA-0007EB-B5; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:44:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:44:54 +0300 Message-Id: <83r0sp8xih.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:44:22 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Philip Kaludercic , eliz@gnu.org, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen > 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: 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. 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. Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 01:48:39 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 05:48:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38757 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTLS-0007Pf-Qg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:48:39 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54904) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTLR-0007PS-8k for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:48:37 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTLK-0001S5-VJ; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:48:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=M4bAlHH7MTzkdV4ehyDt7Tvyrs6l7uGbG5emjEj5e/0=; b=VjJ8+XlA8ZAOwDkTw+iR RQESjurDf6fAqh6PZ9J59jpkGntTx303DxkHA8TIPLb9ZZAEOTzaeQ71LxNGzeil1W7U56LomaxMS WkxxcD0K6rYAtwieFp4o3r6CHSZBGb0/WtuS2ThXwlKujK/lYvOlVpVH9fMErPnflTdAOvOF9TGwb A+nAEJKbxWEs+XvZK8o85K0zrcKE/GNzvGVPDZpFxmlfiu2wy1/oCf0ZScEi5ActgfVeGpcGor8r5 F4koEQ6qvajXx8sPTWqtIwPh5/QAekvYQFbdoyhB362s+KAkwy2DOZLfbvd+lEuIlgsBEyaWOCcWl V3oWYaUNsSi+Lg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTLK-0007cm-2h; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:48:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:49:14 +0300 Message-Id: <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:08:32 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:08:32 +0100 > Cc: "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > Lars Ingebrigtsen > > > If this change can't go into emacs-29, I think it's better to add > > an M-x eglot-update to eglot.el. > > That's the worst of all worlds. > > Why? It's the safest option. Absolutely no package.el regression possible, and doesn't solve a problem > where you don't think I've exists. >From your POV of the Eglot maintainer, it might make sense. But from my POV, it doesn't: the problem here is general, and a solution is at hand that will give you what you want and also support all the other core packages. > What is the problem with the two possible solutions I suggested? > > They are incongruent and not very user friendly IMO. The one which proposed a new command is a natural generalization of your eglot-update proposal, so I think it is as user-friendly as it gets. As for congruency, Stefan just expressed his intuition about that, and I tend to agree with him: upgrades of core packages should indeed be handled by separate command(s) with somewhat different rules and perhaps also a different UI. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 01:50:29 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 05:50:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38767 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTNE-0007T6-GJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:50:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37730) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTNC-0007Sn-GX for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:50:27 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTN6-0001pH-11; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:50:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=5GgKFIgYJX52hx7mbtI20N6tBq7vRXgwKyrFU5VWFFA=; b=IgBH4R1jhxM5tyM8Y9mZ 2i6NTIlwAs3ZXLIJCxtr7/F3HGGcePYaDdkZVaKb6kOYg8djtuZH0kXlCfHmwsKuqGwRKBMgBVX7G NS9Ia+yWSTMkAdg3slsNl2jzEB30jXwEH6xvSM4gzt5Kh9rasHtqNAoojj1YVB9K2YplCpBGbUKEm N+VfjhPyzEC7q77DdDEopEw6jj6k+2OnsfkCTtKPCY91GOQB816UdBsHs9tW1WtS3uQBQf1LmNpQe Ly2cEdPzi040dc5AQDvfa8Vv2WpcW02w4TqhJwfSyZ/7LKLjhrVxDRZ/99ppFuyCgLflwi1c+aEiC li2ArMZLjmSYDA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmTN3-0007kv-AO; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:50:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:51:01 +0300 Message-Id: <83o7nt8x8a.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:28:26 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <83zg7e8d2d.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:28:26 +0100 > Cc: "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier , > Lars Ingebrigtsen , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > > Btw, why, when I do "M-x list-packages RET", I see Eglot in red with > Status "incompat"? If I press RET on its name, I see > > Package eglot is incompatible. > > Status: Incompatible because it depends on uninstallable packages. > > Why is that? > > No idea. Is this with our without my patch? Without. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 03:44:29 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 07:44:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38937 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmV9Z-0002Am-CW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:44:29 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:37615) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmV9W-0002AD-5t for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:44:26 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A215F240105 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:44:20 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681285460; bh=s7X0iV1zTPUaLthLQtOinJgOhqNRSbf/nIYbbhkKqX0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Autocrypt:From; b=D3etnuV+DmbHo1OwBduCHyUxIwCV8nlqSjZolADjk3Z1sY5hrRkj6v6k7n5D4c24L 1hkz1IadoN0C4jZRKqUg+UAp2rKVME6UgDtUFErgx1LCHgjhGCUdm0w3NAcAYPwlFh IN8zosDzOXsDnRr4xl8WBguhqdK9N5BvEcaZIpcEsS1AoOUf9pVcho6/sB/MLosE76 VM2O78S60OiQeyf2TbKZbQHRBznDezPCUNUmlbfPo2OaKRmhMJCRjgsHttBXsJY62p VWHf9/JALfTuH/oMi4/RxlLf2gY8Weg+aBaGeuxTloMQOK2wTqT7l6dDn/Ok42YeI8 yFic44OMv8G3Q== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PxF8g263Sz6txL; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:44:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:36:45 -0400") Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:34:04 +0000 Message-ID: <87jzyha70z.fsf@posteo.net> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= 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: -3.3 (---) Stefan Monnier writes: >>> 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". >> Can't argue against feelings :) > > What can I say: I just know I'm right! > > More seriously, I agree it's not a very strong/compelling argument. > I just wanted to mention it, in case I'm not the only weirdo. I would agree as well, and my argument would be that by installing a core package from ELPA, I am indicating that I want to follow the newest version of a package as it is developed upstream, which might be perceived as less stable/predictable than tracking the development through Emacs updates. > Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 03:44:33 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 07:44:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38943 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmV9d-0002B5-3a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:44:33 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:34003) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmV9a-0002AQ-OS for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:44:31 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B71B240207 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:44:25 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681285465; bh=+AWVZmh7xn1p1VbOibk4yPY+ZduapnSr0hHy4XMI3VE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Autocrypt:From; b=ReI5F8pRx85lWAquauw7Eg84fE/eBPDWsIq5HCqhgjPbuufW5mtZPZAiOM8rYl43i p5kDXNrjQZQIynDTLXBpZwQt3viJt5cHoX+OdAMjyIZbf3oHng8QE6ya0uOjEoJu32 yqp3N9SxbZlMUadcIQYnsPlNYQuV99bVw2jMQHSN8RRo/Ka4UP47muhWLbowV0q3xZ yTfXzDxSG8KhKdMGf3loCQ/UwQWx6zYBzs5aOw6jvZ/FY3PGaPs9FsmRaL85dAWecu qeGXqxEvn8SSZCTUhwrPGTQGeHXnQ0TYiiQjAipBiw2MqhmE+AoXFw9g2XXCcJEHZj zxPiU9lG78fwA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PxF8l1x0yz9rxW; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:44:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83r0sp8xih.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:44:54 +0300") Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:44:20 +0000 Message-ID: <87bkjta6jv.fsf@posteo.net> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83r0sp8xih.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Stefan Monnier >> Cc: Philip Kaludercic , eliz@gnu.org, >> 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen >> 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. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 03:56:29 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 07:56:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38956 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmVLA-0002hZ-HR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:56:29 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com ([209.85.128.46]:36587) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmVL7-0002hG-4h for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:56:27 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id eo6-20020a05600c82c600b003ee5157346cso7449742wmb.1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:56:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681286179; x=1683878179; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=x75CyZ3LVnFslgl+JraFRwrBtueXAZQEIRT5xe+dDrA=; b=sq0xzay6ze+E0yWWxreyKgZ1rlREC0wJk77C4355L6r0JXC68A0oeCbbfCqFv8MPhJ gvMYGdlK7ssglD0rA66jqrtAGtQTvWJADD1Kah1/dzp9FSlLw+qnojdYtkazXRWMTJXE 4SRxFAxQabs46y4kW9evF1p/gA3nqBYiX8HY4lKYhOoFuScWbQqeumLjvdwlMw9mTbAJ wXUL5RA5X2kilNHq2COiQ7KLGLbFfeu1HV+29rQEgNe45pW52jG2k9H0XER9uZJTl3XH LQxUWXHeyo3Xwp+nbpOlYRAVLkEMeNlKUaoFlXf/fmG231bGFUghrkM5+6vH0KW5eVDd EBZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681286179; x=1683878179; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=x75CyZ3LVnFslgl+JraFRwrBtueXAZQEIRT5xe+dDrA=; b=d1E+0Awi/JePrSA77iY9vTbTV0RhXHHm3adeqbnyaPB7Imunw7Vh9AHLhuIVAHV2AX YgyegWewg9sJdNWZ1ki0/c7rApi7Qnt+XdaQS3LhCB4Sl8LKu4H1OFNOFe4CyOYgyPba 8JEX6mB+jLhCSCvOz3NARXyEYXYXBiw0YhI+FdHtL8D/lQJh7r2DYNJFqfXl9lvF/udD x4l/krbrmzW4+9Djpj3M7cD8Z/0/ajZfW/kFWuwO5VxZ/rl2GfL5/0VYoYbvjsKXzHGE WpsqgS/pi3l4JxaPaqQLyDKcQ8hGC2YuzC2FwYv3eJftv3gt1DgpJtl1lukQHbkwruAU W8Sg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cjnEKXN7ry9ci+b8tHUl0GsfLW55PDcTsD5E/VfMpAEh722bjl SXUqCUcHKOxhQ0nuq0+0rJc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350b6/09oJVPGRukst9B45fjL0kFkCrk/Fp4aSkezok5VL7PJYKpPdxkFTDUZ9TbYGVeBcSWaHw== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c44f:0:b0:3f0:9a3f:c8b5 with SMTP id l15-20020a7bc44f000000b003f09a3fc8b5mr1811405wmi.27.1681286179049; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l42-20020a05600c1d2a00b003ef6988e54csm1463731wms.15.2023.04.12.00.56.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:56:18 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:49:14 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:58:23 +0100 Message-ID: <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora >> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:08:32 +0100 >> Cc: "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org,=20 >> Lars Ingebrigtsen >>=20 >> > If this change can't go into emacs-29, I think it's better to add >> > an M-x eglot-update to eglot.el. >>=20 >> That's the worst of all worlds. >>=20 >> Why? It's the safest option. Absolutely no package.el regression possibl= e, and doesn't solve a problem >> where you don't think I've exists. > > From your POV of the Eglot maintainer, it might make sense. But from > my POV, it doesn't: the problem here is general, and a solution is at > hand that will give you what you want and also support all the other > core packages. Your solution doesn't "give me what I want". If I add 'eglot-update' it will work as a single command on every Emacs version from Emacs 26.3 onwards. This new command you're proposing is for Emacs 29 only (and will presumably be deprecated soon). So "what I want(ed)" is for `M-x package-install RET eglot` to keep working smoothly as it did up to here and forever onwards. That's want many package managers do (the "install" verb upgrades, or offers to upgrade). That not being possible, I had settled for a decent working `M-x package-update RET eglot` instead. So this is "what I want": smooth user experience with no new commands or at least simple ones that don't require understanding emacs dev concepts. >> What is the problem with the two possible solutions I suggested? >>=20 >> They are incongruent and not very user friendly IMO. > > The one which proposed a new command is a natural generalization of > your eglot-update proposal, so I think it is as user-friendly as it > gets. As for congruency, Stefan just expressed his intuition about > that, and I tend to agree with him: upgrades of core packages should > indeed be handled by separate command(s) with somewhat different rules > and perhaps also a different UI. I think 'package-update-core-package' is just unfortunate, because the regular user doesn't care what the heck is core, and can you blame her? I can't stop you from adding it, of course. Have you thought how it should behave when the package is no longer a core package, i.e. has already updated? I.e. should 'package-update-core-package' update a non-core package in certain situations? If so, then we're inches away from 'M-x package-update-any-package', which is just a fixed `M-x package-update` as I proposed. If not, then it's really quite strange to have to run one command for one update and another command for the next one. I have to ask (though I can guess the answer): may I add 'eglot-update' anyway to emacs-29 as a no-brainer shortcut in the meantime? Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 04:09:49 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 08:09:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38977 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmVY5-00032V-5H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:09:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60030) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmVY1-00032H-U0 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:09:47 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmVXv-0005xk-QZ; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:09:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=6ZJlbLQ9b2BFbJ0yuw27wDDCxVoUM6dVPS449By9MlY=; b=PSfF7o4aA/JJ 5wP4khpktJXdm8Wlft3ofB3I6TVriPRCO397rx/5MDojnoQrm9JKOszQS8+KwCvoGVXGahF19R1Xl QwfDcoJGGJeS/ac0gSXfz77GCRvbz/U7fMuCxLnIQPhLtQbGcBqZuQtNyp4GhvYxQVajUWupFcgEu yByaJ+qZLatTi7/UHzetNIifAXD7wCgFpccPy2T9rK+B0NDMnjL5TaeNVxr6Uc6RiNHeIdT7PVk97 IiCaq7VkH2AX0/xFWi8TuHjFAVfm+cTMsqK0Y0kR4rfSgJaPTeK78tR4jjgXGD8t93jHXH3okv/Py 1kyyCRiN2eUlHlZvBfGf/w==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmVXv-0001X6-83; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:09:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:10:23 +0300 Message-Id: <834jpl8qs0.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87bkjta6jv.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:44:20 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83r0sp8xih.fsf@gnu.org> <87bkjta6jv.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: Stefan Monnier , joaotavora@gmail.com, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:44:20 +0000 > > >> 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. I'm okay with an alternative terminology, like "built-in". > How about something along the lines of `package-update-from-built-in'? Not sure about the "from" part. How about package-update-built-in instead? or maybe package-upgrade-builtin (since built-in packages will only ever be upgraded, at least normally)? > > 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? The plan is to provide a command similar to package-update, but which will be used only for built-in packages which are also on ELPA (a.k.a. "core packages"). The internals will probably be different, since package-update offers only non-built-in packages as completion candidates, the data structures package.el uses for built-in and non-built-in packages are different, and installing an updated package should NOT delete the bundled one, just install the newer version so that it is used in preference to the bundled one. Other than that, the UI is supposed to be the same as in package-update. If something else is unclear, please ask. > > 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? Yes. But when you say "hasn't been installed from ELPA yet", do you mean that once it has been installed, users will have to use a different command for updating it further? That might be confusing; I'd prefer that the same command is used for all the updates of built-in packages. For example, if we'd later want to support downgrading back to the bundled version, the implementation will be different for built-in packages, so having a separate command will save us some maintenance headaches. > If there is no difference in version between the ELPA and the core > package, should we say anything? Probably just user-error, I guess? Or maybe optionally provide a way of forcing the update, like if the user wants to reinstall the package anyway for whatever reasons? Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 04:19:18 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 08:19:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38985 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmVhG-0003Ge-DW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:19:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59188) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmVhE-0003GR-BR for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:19:17 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmVh7-0007uw-1c; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:19:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=B59uZMorFRppbMOI/iWn6j/xWNNoCbsZ9uKkAC5Uj/A=; b=f5iOc5kn0JS2YbNoCZMO yd731hOQjfPMOz79GE+FYs6M/Oy9BPZKyLGP872hThaMSXvBxJA8gOcgPTD5DriWhUqWdFItaJAQA pI52ugjwUgLR2NFR4a+gsFjpeWtlBylhTw9jmWBsVGAiZ0kNyi7fKqkYCyzgP9AW1T+54wb30eifu fW3dsnfn4wj9INNBT5LrE+Q3R6Hbiz+8oYZHTzD7tIMEZ4ATe+Rq1q6BRTKf8lgJdRIPHqE70jE/4 Q/pKwuE7LACAHRwOjQ4bIdxfJ/HTIIzgkzDoW7cNWcIf1rBqFGunWIqh4R7naM2+r8CkLG79SreBS PnPJ5Wdz3wJkjg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmVh6-0002iG-5B; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:19:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:19:52 +0300 Message-Id: <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28g?= =?utf-8?B?VMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:58:23 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:58:23 +0100 > > > From your POV of the Eglot maintainer, it might make sense. But from > > my POV, it doesn't: the problem here is general, and a solution is at > > hand that will give you what you want and also support all the other > > core packages. > > Your solution doesn't "give me what I want". If I add 'eglot-update' it > will work as a single command on every Emacs version from Emacs 26.3 > onwards. This new command you're proposing is for Emacs 29 only (and > will presumably be deprecated soon). Since you started by proposing a patch to package.el, that solution had the same issues with older Emacsen. IOW, that is a separate problem. In particular, Eglot is not bundled in those older Emacsen, so package.el should support updating Eglot just fine for those older versions. > So this is "what I want": smooth user experience with no new commands or > at least simple ones that don't require understanding emacs dev > concepts. If we want the solution be general, rather than having a separate update command for each core package, then there's a limit to what we can do to give this smooth user experience to users of older Emacsen. However, I don't think in this case there's a problem, see above. > I think 'package-update-core-package' is just unfortunate, because the > regular user doesn't care what the heck is core, and can you blame her? I disagree with your assessment. Moreover, I think such a command is needed anyway, for reasons other than the ones which prompted this bug report. > I can't stop you from adding it, of course. Have you thought how it > should behave when the package is no longer a core package, i.e. has > already updated? Yes, see my other messages. > I have to ask (though I can guess the answer): may I add 'eglot-update' > anyway to emacs-29 as a no-brainer shortcut in the meantime? I'd prefer not to have package-specific upgrade commands. I hope we will soon add to package.el on emacs-29 a new command that will allow users to update core packages, including Eglot, and that will solve the problem for users of Emacs 29 and later, where Eglot is bundled. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 04:51:28 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 08:51:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39013 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmWCN-0006iQ-L0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:51:28 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:37852) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmWCM-0006i1-3R for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:51:26 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1842eb46746so12930516fac.4 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:51:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681289480; x=1683881480; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=i9aa/vqUkWX0MAz4gtanzK5+Eo3ZNdUuuBLChjtprBg=; b=QyNuwMZvh2qpvY2eb/+RFf8ecKPW8wrjHcOqwAmWKkHWmuzBQurxDu4h5OuMK7Nd19 /71gMCN8nyRjg/hBq4KD+PZEbZ267kVLx2kir9PwJ5yKkPIvUHJo7c9IuPSu6Bh1iz4j iFZ0ZpIH0jgMDmONa0yPeYW2OoPoKta5dIghW/lcrDhEtMVmflvgA/M0ItGnsMBHTden 7fd/yK4+/V4SE8mEaehBKRBtwRTEtO3vX7MoOM5N/IBjm8NtC7y0uDPPPPdldSwmI03d 9P/y0wLyPXRUJWza0PVIbK9PU5Qq5462g8+eAvQNloiX/CwClASchthBQcrKc/bEPfVF MxzA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681289480; x=1683881480; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=i9aa/vqUkWX0MAz4gtanzK5+Eo3ZNdUuuBLChjtprBg=; b=oVEgArWOALdz8aVVGnpKP4sP6vItR22ZXwDBpn56b6nhtKkgwrJCpvZmGhNRmrBwQA PNjRGyyGafWWI2fHna5HK/9dWoIyAdj+fQboELCwlQhwQR37M1NDorHl9u4hNVN+8uj3 Jzhd3dvXAIaMn6ggf1z2b8yzJpgZwViBjcUwN2t3KHWbyHU399LVmrTM4d9AQ6oFOvDD zii4jdUnfzj7KmbdS/9y80qMO9hLptYGmnP6o8hqARpQAQMl0ssjaT8SDkpPHJ3hNRr4 SqwUpTGmw47PTZDtfv0AwwdvL3RBN1rONypE1Zs7e7SDxLOnklS7fPRp4GE9M+dXoJul imGA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fEkHD1Hb5IRAxwW6mXju4ikSuPLlenbnEvRgcsuoPwL59CvrK8 FoK9ac/O48+2HJenVYOPeAjHOjym6KRyv85GZW0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Z6g1OyJfGykW0z663wX+aT85DEgKLYrNtf9iueM4NIeE9h/AW5Ppe5Jr79cKdjpBAHGIuQiugw9fkpqLltPno= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:282:b0:187:7874:8afa with SMTP id i2-20020a056871028200b0018778748afamr341501oae.5.1681289480020; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 01:51:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:51:08 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 9:19=E2=80=AFAM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Your solution doesn't "give me what I want". If I add 'eglot-update' i= t > > will work as a single command on every Emacs version from Emacs 26.3 > > onwards. This new command you're proposing is for Emacs 29 only (and > > will presumably be deprecated soon). > > Since you started by proposing a patch to package.el, that solution > had the same issues with older Emacsen. In onler Emacsen, M-x package-install works. I was going to also propose that M-x package-install on Emacs 29 offers to upgrade. But if even a "fixed" (IMO, of course) M-x package-update isn't accepted, then I won't even bother proposing fixing M-x package-install on Emacs 29. > IOW, that is a separate > problem. In particular, Eglot is not bundled in those older Emacsen, > so package.el should support updating Eglot just fine for those older > versions. Yes, but the command that two users using, say, Emacs 28 and Emacs 29 will be different. And happen to think that's unfortunate. > > So this is "what I want": smooth user experience with no new commands o= r > > at least simple ones that don't require understanding emacs dev > > concepts. > > If we want the solution be general, rather than having a separate > update command for each core package, then there's a limit to what we > can do to give this smooth user experience to users of older Emacsen. > However, I don't think in this case there's a problem, see above. I don't think this "limit" really exists. As far as I understand, if I had detected this problem earlier or your perception of the stability of my patch for emacs-29 were different, then this problem would be well on its way to non-existence. > > I think 'package-update-core-package' is just unfortunate, because the > > regular user doesn't care what the heck is core, and can you blame her? > > I disagree with your assessment. Moreover, I think such a command is > needed anyway, for reasons other than the ones which prompted this bug > report. > > > I can't stop you from adding it, of course. Have you thought how it > > should behave when the package is no longer a core package, i.e. has > > already updated? > > Yes, see my other messages. I can't well understand what the behaviour will be, I'll wait to see the final version. > > I have to ask (though I can guess the answer): may I add 'eglot-update' > > anyway to emacs-29 as a no-brainer shortcut in the meantime? > > I'd prefer not to have package-specific upgrade commands. I hope we > will soon add to package.el on emacs-29 a new command that will allow > users to update core packages, including Eglot, and that will solve > the problem for users of Emacs 29 and later, where Eglot is bundled. FTR I would also 100% also "prefer not to have package-specific upgrade commands" :-) That would be my preference too. But again, I really have to ask :-), may I add it or would you revert the commit immediately? Again, I'm just looking to have a congruent, simple way to tell users how to ensure latest Eglot version without needing to know if they have Emacs 29, 27 or 47. This command, while also not being my first "preferenc= e", fulfills that requirement. Can we have it? It's only 4 lines of code. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 05:16:15 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 09:16:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39038 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmWaN-0007VS-1I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:16:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f53.google.com ([209.85.221.53]:45923) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmWaI-0007Uy-8W for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:16:13 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f53.google.com with SMTP id e7so76024wrc.12 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:16:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681290964; x=1683882964; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=BLDXRWD9CIrKL387l5S0ng4urTXz4WDSxO2aR10saM8=; b=cDfg44Mz+8vKlm1i9nOABbz7kFm/6rsp7fjRFEKKdnOWyrMy2q6xvIMkXErv1+F1zs fkIbRtkd+IYVfYk2GAznsTvRxSzNmthN+nz+Q0xz6eIEUwJJlg2RqOpX6l/vurV88JmQ Oh8IQCpE37pfk34ByIknpAmhQPD7GABRozWU0/Q7sWKNZApQ6vVd5W1wwIcr017wbx2Z T15rE3mEY3PEW9uESbx23YiE7BfFHfwljFo31kMqHs8YYXMPudnNjrIjltnrIG3MPx2d bBlAY+SOfTKVgXiDqXbumaXMwB6w6yB6ZGpih0lC3dcRUlRP6PzIaK8RFR/Exn4HSmh1 +FeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681290964; x=1683882964; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BLDXRWD9CIrKL387l5S0ng4urTXz4WDSxO2aR10saM8=; b=H22vM13SUOlwlvXeVL4OfTPUEyd/mHTEwXXYqbQCHoOgS+XDx2vbJvembwy7zLz4S+ +bvuZBRTBJyhhBdmqBkIiO4vFuYzpJSFbnH9P7K+GrmQGXE5nJiA3ZcDf16mZ4ZTJeDp n7ksfRxlZoLfv6JN3S2stfla0x8Kih849IIVdyiBux7Ef7rd7WXFJxjd3T+iI84m9YkK Q31iqUs4p0q0Cki8J/WAs6ld3xeuRZSS5o7yZNJh94kY4k5z84fnfO03X6QCRyGZ8ODq CyvjKyGrgY4KAG3CrMeuYd9058SJSsw7meWJupKcxYpDJWElxw1jc/9TVr5LJdMQ6mvU mRCg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fgO/hdo2gCZegRnVRajomTmVPhhm8w093y9za782XbQniHjy95 C+CgORQnHlx2L5SBB/lL+myn+uP+Z2A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YZlxdZ7T2kJw3qflLkeGVDlN33+vAou4mblQ+Lug+X2wu64Jk8NzXprPdUPqS4YAxAdPRw6w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:100b:b0:2d7:d4b:b33 with SMTP id a11-20020a056000100b00b002d70d4b0b33mr10870005wrx.21.1681290963870; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p23-20020a1c7417000000b003f0824e8c92sm1703598wmc.7.2023.04.12.02.16.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:16:03 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83o7nt8x8a.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:51:01 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <83zg7e8d2d.fsf@gnu.org> <83o7nt8x8a.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:18:08 +0100 Message-ID: <87cz49lar3.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora >> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:28:26 +0100 >> Cc: "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier ,=20 >> Lars Ingebrigtsen , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org >>=20 >> Btw, why, when I do "M-x list-packages RET", I see Eglot in red with >> Status "incompat"? If I press RET on its name, I see >>=20 >> Package eglot is incompatible. >>=20 >> Status: Incompatible because it depends on uninstallable package= s. >>=20 >> Why is that? >>=20 >> No idea. Is this with our without my patch? > > Without. I can't reproduce this in a recent emacs-29. Here's what I start Emacs with HOME=3D`mktemp -d` && src/emacs -Q -f list-packages I get: Status: Available from gnu -- [Install] Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 05:32:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 09:32:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39066 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmWpo-0007yd-Kw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:32:12 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com ([209.85.128.46]:56140) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmWpm-0007yN-9v for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:32:10 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id m8so19819058wmq.5 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:32:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681291924; x=1683883924; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=5YoW49cDse5cLl3HvnoqlUpprrkM9F3wpTWI6NkgdSs=; b=WmegloABggw6YxpdMZuinlI2YSl2N/oIdzJJsiH2UCmmV6k5j1xxvBbF5AmGpysHKi PZfANHGX0QHcSzDy6xi4a3Vi7ponmX0Ry9SWi52xFVfJ3E/MgzHHkVdEatnfZqvaDFA+ 4bFPL69udbo/AZD9/UK6+FH5hvjZARYv+Uum/b2UhfnDhqpYQ6PIPsL1u4wAmZJaeSAL DO8lPWA7uOi7XetMSfXiHJfkIIC/hvjHkrpf2kAL5EA8EN4TO/FWYAjwpJCNrsbtv6h1 EE+Mi0z3c3eAyVmget1aE8/q07LFlrGa8mxBBx6drM4ONeAGJhprKIoWrR1tul68MA7i ot/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681291924; x=1683883924; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5YoW49cDse5cLl3HvnoqlUpprrkM9F3wpTWI6NkgdSs=; b=2IyWiYKSzxqPYivepm9wyMMVAD5vYvyV2zrnvBxXLcteLWYVR74A0siRZPKGdJkE6W 9GObMicdHFjdH8o27xawly8SMfAQtjRnPm2lOafcACulXCBUO0Wg5+BuBlQXdmhu+xg7 i2vW9xDbDsaKaCE0JCDOvnY1FM4NT3fjtenbEdo48DsjCAKmIz+9x4shGQ+R/GTCQ2oB nc99d/Wo3ARz8qMHOhhfxqkaulV0bfri3JQczzGpsI4Bov0LWAr8KVGUql9jnChHjBnq 8198NHNn0jiU3E1UaFv7j+MLPttb1HcOtezX33Qhp+7NpBs9v40sWYaVsJfXon14L03o YxtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dSt+DaTSRMozpkJ6qaIJnSvHCWgKrBBDTa0yJHUC1CKC0ExbE5 TLKzIz+ruUEvdbkyY7WPQsI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZLEwCKdsiGjHnXQwU9oZpeq6d6BKjNDS5jkMbT0Z8PK8tiEtJG+TGz7lv+7tmSXkG0k1lOuw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2148:b0:3ed:f9d3:f95c with SMTP id v8-20020a05600c214800b003edf9d3f95cmr9503051wml.19.1681291924401; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 9-20020a05600c228900b003ed2276cd0dsm1693295wmf.38.2023.04.12.02.32.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:32:03 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: Dmitry Gutov Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <301ec075-c5f6-092c-b789-175c8cc64e1e@gutov.dev> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:14:06 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <301ec075-c5f6-092c-b789-175c8cc64e1e@gutov.dev> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:34:08 +0100 Message-ID: <877cuhla0f.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , eliz@gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen , Stefan Monnier 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 (-) Dmitry Gutov writes: > On 11/04/2023 14:02, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora wrote: >> Philip Kaludercic writes: >>=20 >>> Will this not affect `package-update-all'? I don't if we want that the >>> command installs all packages from ELPA that it can find. >> 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. > > On a related note, do you know whether we upgrade the built-in > packages when the user presses 'U' in the list-packages buffer? > > Using the command package-menu-mark-upgrades, that is. Nope, doesn't work, doesn't do anything to those packages. I wish it did, of course. I also don't understand why this is using separate, but repeated logic from package-update. What is the difference between "upgrade" and "update", if any? Is "upgrade" more powerful? BTW, I also noticed that Eglot's version on Emacs 29 is garbled. I had wanted 1.12-emacs29 to somehow show that it is Emacs 29 specific. But version-to-list doesn't like it and the package shows up as version "nil" in package--builtins. Will just change it to 1.12.29, which is less perceptible but works fine (none of this makes any difference to this bug, of course). Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 05:53:16 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 09:53:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39085 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmXAC-0000EB-Ed for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:53:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54648) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmXAA-0000Dr-3c for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:53:15 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmXA2-0002ow-LM; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:53:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=uBvO7E/LU8t5LEDVEOcCEB5wkaeKN0adfbRWRWY8t+0=; b=SKsd81Bw7KWnN3Ds4cWc PYLFG6xbB2mjfVxs2JAvXcU2GUIvsnScgYnZbQus63SLNQCLPOtRgaP4PzWOJIuLbZjZI5yJwzwa9 wF6DncZzDDG5Uh0Ezt7ujd8KCxj0hTIjlfQjbNWO6iSjO8wflMzeBcZZZ7zFsVSnW1isFm648R850 Xr3LOHKt0NTXMGzlgf75r1SXTgttngh7wtQhqvbPExDHt09xADGxXqH8WWEzzdv890iLjvD+WCrfv fsZ9bUxUEJhOlipIGdv62m9EQAx2lrSs9/fM+t67OQd4H9mO38rsWr5mwMhYbwbXKy2+bX9+p96Wb 0HELoV2mU0mk0Q==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmXA1-0004rc-NB; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:53:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:53:48 +0300 Message-Id: <83wn2h77f7.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: <87cz49lar3.fsf@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28g?= =?utf-8?B?VMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:18:08 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <83zg7e8d2d.fsf@gnu.org> <83o7nt8x8a.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz49lar3.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:18:08 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Btw, why, when I do "M-x list-packages RET", I see Eglot in red with > >> Status "incompat"? If I press RET on its name, I see > >> > >> Package eglot is incompatible. > >> > >> Status: Incompatible because it depends on uninstallable packages. > >> > >> Why is that? > >> > >> No idea. Is this with our without my patch? > > > > Without. > > I can't reproduce this in a recent emacs-29. Here's what I start Emacs > with > > HOME=`mktemp -d` && src/emacs -Q -f list-packages > > I get: > > Status: Available from gnu -- [Install] I did just emacs -Q M-x list-packages RET and I still see what I described. I get the same if I point HOME to a scratch empty directory. Maybe it's a Windows thing? why are some dependencies marked as "not available"? Package eglot is incompatible. Status: Incompatible because it depends on uninstallable packages. Archive: gnu Version: 1.14 Commit: 8125d4cfc5605ead9102b7d823c4241029eb76cc Summary: The Emacs Client for LSP servers Requires: emacs-26.3, jsonrpc-1.0.16, flymake-1.2.1, project-0.9.8 (not available), xref-1.6.2 (not available), eldoc-1.14.0, seq-2.23 (not available), external-completion-0.1 (not available) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 06:23:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 10:23:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39114 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmXdB-00016I-5Q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:23:13 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42694) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmXd5-000161-SO for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:23:11 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmXcv-0001ux-Ng; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:22:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=5NWIGf0IPs+5A+kNZgOBNa/EIjn0VDWcZnGBXtfoQF4=; b=b8dJvxq2VZUayAqkZge5 juH5o+1exZLkenpVoSWSBSvEVJButWjcwjc88jHm+uSgpNFw0eBYlJHiQTWpoR3btkDCZehCPrbFD aUbi4lR0eEYVqRIb/wDxUxOnRbfY6lZ0f4H2xnroUcWycLUOmMvMg8VdpL7Lg5qli+mt6N5yFEhXH mOB4ykUv2rP9gldjxRaXwA9Me/iLmdBZrp47v3uRz0pLGn1AGN3zzma7I0HwutDQDv3AR0uZ6MMl1 aXlwOuUWVhJ7FPgfFstXrk9FEC1C/wxRZJT70dteFTfMz8mjqvo0/ZkxEcmkcPlP/v4jvy64UPuig vdRF+suvufT1BQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmXcu-0007cA-GS; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:22:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:23:40 +0300 Message-Id: <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:51:08 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:51:08 +0100 > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > > > > I have to ask (though I can guess the answer): may I add 'eglot-update' > > > anyway to emacs-29 as a no-brainer shortcut in the meantime? > > > > I'd prefer not to have package-specific upgrade commands. I hope we > > will soon add to package.el on emacs-29 a new command that will allow > > users to update core packages, including Eglot, and that will solve > > the problem for users of Emacs 29 and later, where Eglot is bundled. > > FTR I would also 100% also "prefer not to have package-specific upgrade > commands" :-) That would be my preference too. But again, I really have > to ask :-), may I add it or would you revert the commit immediately? Why do you insist on threats of reverting being the only efficient means of communications about these matters? This is supposed to be a collaborative effort, not a confrontation. If we are going to have a special command for upgrading core packages (and it currently looks like we are), then having an additional Eglot-specific command for a similar purpose would be against our common goal of having a UX that changes as little as possible, given the restrictions. What else can I say to express clearly that I would like such a command to not be installed? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 06:38:57 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 10:38:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39128 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmXsO-0001jv-Ks for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:38:56 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f50.google.com ([209.85.160.50]:40871) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmXsK-0001je-AL for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:38:55 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f50.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-18447b9a633so10556539fac.7 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:38:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681295926; x=1683887926; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Ua6KFo5Gh+3eZxHcfnDZ+JNkoK0m7oThZIEbIl55FIs=; b=fZTDb1wZom63A9nvuBZDXdgWopN4zvG/qTAvbWCcsSP1Y6qFbL2Ejgs1892LyrhO1V VPXwGxywuO//IiPFNaRtZNpYnZLvJwXqNXiQ85c+xMVXpeszSNWZvAI7E5bn2TJxhMPt dO2stiun0/BHiJU6aVJ4eAE+GX4gaFMMVmHdeOeZSbO5Ktf3kDjJ1Cr12H5O1UgDlBGu 9goq4TzL3gh+8DU26l5jdvmG3ZyyfAOshdVuyxAnZfMJqIPxXYH3syumEzIWoXYvp14m szv+aUwwfCwvEcDxZ60SJG1ecUHoqffJ+Se3XiMwo1N21eeUmAFUloqyXeVIhJ8uLcf2 aXKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681295926; x=1683887926; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Ua6KFo5Gh+3eZxHcfnDZ+JNkoK0m7oThZIEbIl55FIs=; b=yiwFGX/nPu6JJEkUUlg9r7JD8Xhxh3zKzYK6ZVmTiDy8JSI/dE3hrxlIsxHfAxC2N0 2in5H53ooYKXU/9fy4Tj8oia8HyjHAM3ey3cj9BDGUMkMjgOyx2MRWh5vlSgLuALDd4x LRPjeqkxBZHw0bQJkfXoN7dxCDnUTbBNT07T87S3b22cRTjoNreXXXeZywU6bLt9FEb2 3l/gHY3hgrKd/+0T2p7CAtQAkNYpbABS2BZ3Kh6kpBO9vbJQ99qMe581XetP5I77rpYG OLIn0UTvm20yS65Cr9m6K9r0iObdS+1buIBJ3fwY9B+oz5qM5Q2S1FyWLtzab1QfBi89 kayw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9csHBtHtvWc1F282W45oBVCGh+3wiH4JLKZn3sXrpG8ZmKOHZs8 ubqhawdvlQ0f478nxngNan7nNWDgf83qoOtCAeE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aHRNi9ZzDQypGz37e5AmhCZohKg2lEx3vagR1++Wg2vfENlpB3yX1Gcwun6yaT4l5gJOR167F9T90pHcrMhzQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:282:b0:187:7874:8afa with SMTP id i2-20020a056871028200b0018778748afamr443066oae.5.1681295926270; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:38:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:38:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:23=E2=80=AFAM Eli Zaretskii wrote= : > Why do you insist on threats of reverting being the only efficient > means of communications about these matters? This is supposed to be a > collaborative effort, not a confrontation. Of course. But we don't agree Eli, and that's a normal part of working with someone. No need to use the words "threads" or "confrontation", or suggest this nasty ill will on my end. No one is threatening anybody. I was just asking nicely if I can add the command: you're the head maintainer, you have to make a decision at some point. > If we are going to have a special command for upgrading core packages > (and it currently looks like we are), then having an additional > Eglot-specific command for a similar purpose would be against our > common goal of having a UX that changes as little as possible, given > the restrictions. What else can I say to express clearly that I would > like such a command to not be installed? I wouldn't want it either, but it seems the least bad of all solutions here. Package.el is in my honest opinion very inconsistent already. M-x package-isntall does one thing, package-update does another, then there's the "package upgrades" in the menu which use yet different logic. I am beginning to understand why people are flocking away to straight.el and elpaca.el. Given this poor situation, I think that adding yet _more_ complexity to package.el UX is worse. But I don't want to stop you from doing that if you really think it's the correct way. No confrontation here, Eli. And in fact, if I'm wrong and people love `package-update-core-package` and find it consistent, then `eglot-update` will just fall into oblivion and be forgotten, and we can deprecate it just like we did `eglot-manual`. So please, work with me and give me the benefit of the doubt that this 4-line helper command in Eglot won't hurt anybody and might actually help somebody. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 06:58:10 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 10:58:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39152 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYAz-0002S6-Ot for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:58:10 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f50.google.com ([209.85.128.50]:35411) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYAw-0002RY-53 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:58:08 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f50.google.com with SMTP id v14-20020a05600c470e00b003f06520825fso11328342wmo.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:58:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681297080; x=1683889080; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=rpuuyDQYfXqWzLVKz5Nha0pJYuQQC3BPi1nz9TeigJQ=; b=M1kipPA5nVQ70AIblppN8hUhH6Q+obUHoCICdzdGMk8L0KAgeJ0iI13QVraHLxVqnS txGKUcz2YMsZAvydL3u+WsxgM+MfdAux9NAGK7JdMDrNpRPk6rUE/LKDGB7MxxvTcHPf lsgrU+FYjj71IV+6Poom3lIz4D2bUdBYhvIZobbr6eji1qAGu181Jc5YlS8phNvuyIoa YXS7UtjDrS4at+mQ2Leo4hk5v6hvkbfO6p1LdEWhP5LkGoPY1a1Ktbu3bTMlot1q3IIN fU61r8J41UqiyaprQdjM/1BgBLPYMW2mq5nryYE04PNSJRr2XXhMwQXJNOjTjv0bO00M AXYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681297080; x=1683889080; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rpuuyDQYfXqWzLVKz5Nha0pJYuQQC3BPi1nz9TeigJQ=; b=0kvWHjk/AO3MR/iNUeujRI8mz2LfdtfcUfx+EN5AfOA1QpIuVA2NS8JycEMtIdDIFm yDqP7DuD6TJaWX0YzIgMZBk2nxvdXBU8PPljO7g1YodZcd5j36O/Voj8xnswyAsHS7MY uzXW2VGIeiO8cEfCuxjslGcF+hkIyS6zGsFqKssm6W6WImqyXDX7xz09vmZAujwZqTTv 66fk5pzQmSs9bm67noc39OfYqlf9xPE88n5mjUEr7yHYeE0jCSQEbsCj+McxW64lhrqp pk+bhycaow4FjjfBTQEatZMHmFYXv2Y9sF9jjOjzp9IM7hWjCvDUYqViNh0PaWSzF3e4 2yCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9em+MP1EUf7qdLxTfBDynD8G9NfFXdJr5FE58l8spXfP/8MXoXN TSfxp7/oeXcktxSi06mW88c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350a2OqFtXgz2i3dlENIpVaB142ABTj5pQ9wk3RgninQv5/uMO4vzZDBhj63KPZ7x4aGliOHuqw== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cd0b:0:b0:3ef:7584:9896 with SMTP id f11-20020a7bcd0b000000b003ef75849896mr1696386wmj.26.1681297080007; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p4-20020a1c7404000000b003ee44b2effasm1974037wmc.12.2023.04.12.03.57.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:57:59 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:23:40 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:04 +0100 Message-ID: <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: > the restrictions. What else can I say to express clearly that I would > like such a command to not be installed? Had another idea: what about this very tiny patch, then? It makes `M-x package-install` work for installing a :core package. This also rhymes exactly with Stefan's intution/feeling that :core packages need to be "installed" to promote them to installable. The current M-x package-install recommendation could remain flawlessly and then you can do whatever you think is best for M-x package-update & friends. diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..134505a96af 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -2164,8 +2164,10 @@ package-installed-p (and pkg-descs (version-list-<=3D min-version (package-desc-version (car pkg-descs))))) - ;; Also check built-in packages. - (package-built-in-p package min-version))))) + ;; Also check built-in packages. But if min-version is nil, just + ;; act as if a package-desc had been passed (bug#62720) + (and min-version (package-built-in-p package min-version)))))) =20 (defun package-download-transaction (packages) "Download and install all the packages in PACKAGES. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 07:00:57 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 11:00:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39160 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYDg-0002Xr-Jf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:00:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47568) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYDe-0002Xd-6x for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:00:55 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYDX-0001io-8i; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:00:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=DkJKeNJf+eA0FZNUbBKejaneTiuunXUAdEvsJmcsus0=; b=nAGYTNdIL8gyZJN2IrAT fStmC+gOWpV2xImAMxIOx14BsKwloR+Is6dK+pCdBNqUxvQpDppuDBaTt339D/q075TvpdW381Ykf IDhoJdkxMlWWx9zgoX8jqukYIN1YoxW84sYk9j5eBESLN8Sw8xhsovM+VGuTf/KKZihrtsnLXAGRf 6DRGdN0YOrCp5fZJwdgy7Bp6xHaKj0zCoipHGVJgKQH29UHzPMCdnSCwjt44fjKS3mt6IGmQscSoc r2yO6M6LQXp41S4D9gsTx0Z0DUtz/PMJcBr8wn8bregWe8zeuhi4Yijdqct/w3VMI9xCdX6yfIm2A nNCZY4BUYW3l1A==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYDW-0002Zi-EF; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:00:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:01:30 +0300 Message-Id: <83pm8974ad.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:38:35 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:38:35 +0100 > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:23 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Why do you insist on threats of reverting being the only efficient > > means of communications about these matters? This is supposed to be a > > collaborative effort, not a confrontation. > > Of course. But we don't agree Eli, and that's a normal part of > working with someone. We are talking here about relative merits of two mostly equivalent commands, one of which is more general than the other and will allow users to perform what you want, among other things. The disagreement is about how serious is the problem of having the UI change for Emacs users from Emacs 29 onwards. (Btw, having a special Eglot command also constitutes a change in the UI.) When this kind of matters are in disagreement (as opposed to design and implementation of package which you develop and maintain), I expect my opinion to have a slightly larger weight. > But I don't want to stop you from doing that if you really think it's > the correct way. No confrontation here, Eli. And in fact, if I'm wrong > and people love `package-update-core-package` and find it consistent, > then `eglot-update` will just fall into oblivion and be forgotten, > and we can deprecate it just like we did `eglot-manual`. So please, > work with me and give me the benefit of the doubt that this 4-line > helper command in Eglot won't hurt anybody and might actually > help somebody. I think adding such a command would be a mistake, so I'm asking you not to add such a command to Emacs. Please! From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 07:07:44 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 11:07:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39185 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYKG-0002jC-JR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:07:44 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57614) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYKD-0002iy-Ro for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:07:43 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYJx-0002wR-6y; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:07:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=iINLrJb1MrLaubF6wPEdw39gh4gVJ5M7qdxUEg6knE8=; b=JObqdUBtTtch2NzDjtJR TCtReXKRIH/SYYrfLzsW+9LmbMlVFaETU3rfwlNS7Fl6fpmTzUVHfdm5DzQxBDUM6crywX0EkPLG3 ZdfrqHTWhjA+r+TAfXOaOYwxJ5aJLlsTtDSP9kUuThC/e+P4sIcTY9yR80tj464lL6oUqse4e7InB 89/8ksl04/wVo0E+zns8bgSb8NRexcRUUpnM98YjPtCsqj0iKzecbg4eew51C/cK3aGxgDJW2o8vX YyZREv7qTJNvmWnnzV20i2wXbNEbJ52KNcdGBI5+lboUGx3IRaC5GKj0Bcc665/bWBUiLVVrvwXwx EFm3NLKtvjoyZA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYJw-00084V-Gw; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:07:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:08:09 +0300 Message-Id: <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28g?= =?utf-8?B?VMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:04 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:04 +0100 > > Had another idea: what about this very tiny patch, then? It makes `M-x > package-install` work for installing a :core package. This also rhymes > exactly with Stefan's intution/feeling that :core packages need to be > "installed" to promote them to installable. The current M-x > package-install recommendation could remain flawlessly and then you can > do whatever you think is best for M-x package-update & friends. This has the same problem: it modifies a function that is called in too many places. package-installed-p has half a dozen callers in package.el alone. The change is tiny, but what about its implications on every use case where it is involved? So I still think a special command for updating a core package will be a better, safer solution, and the reasons for that are more than just this one, as mentioned up-thread. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 07:15:30 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 11:15:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39200 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYRm-0002vT-8t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:15:30 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f52.google.com ([209.85.160.52]:34372) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYRk-0002vF-JF for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:15:29 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1842cddca49so13514932fac.1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:15:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681298123; x=1683890123; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=fMpN7fGXVYQY9YrrBJksZYhuFN0lvvLxq6TR8aS/Ag8=; b=luxOaXUON8zykkao21j9RVkr11Fljg/IBqKZaHze8/eBdjS7v2KYZFNlqXKmMns569 /ZEMIU4NxAnL8Wdd940ciH7Q+DJEhTG2vYQZEuZDDE7EYnNX1zxrbHsMMGOLrXGS134A zoM7BDjhUC4VtbfIu/0LVZFbxVlWCP0YQdy2oBWfR2EwLurUSIKlpjAtaIzighahmLc/ 0gbfv9IPjRnHMP8oHgRNRwQApKriU/9xOdJoQWEvPy01VYatHfVVBDBZPW53pS7N4hrx rwezbSmOg4oGdbsiYIuiWon8WXybIWNLpwi3eESqzQ0ZpK4VOMsCFzykQKuzBOKWl0gz O8hw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681298123; x=1683890123; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fMpN7fGXVYQY9YrrBJksZYhuFN0lvvLxq6TR8aS/Ag8=; b=ByRhi3OBAgkFFMiRf28La0uF54lXb4X181BzHU/Egf9DSftKCGCzCoC6qX3GIIB+FU D41IwGLuuvH1TJSrSXmTbmCazt2PYraULcGp/X314uWfhg0PfilKKgKW6goFp04zn3Ec VUXuNGfWRZR14haq7/2bVQeBO/9HY/fg6VsMdTKZBZoPGNESlaqN1HK3rw+RhUKHZy4a /5SqOCuVrz6QzSvtOo28nQAGz68YwvwIfv8f180Ycm/ZdcpQ73IDd9Xh+crkU8WxKEez e+lZpUUnGeLZHXkBXmDfG0C7a35khxU2LI3h52mBIuBfbXdnwUBbD4ifzAv0NjtgTS5e Wseg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dR2b7KtOBCTJfDBrE9KTaJC4T3ZtRsIIOlnXdV5ZDzH1Q0WdWR uhPpeJowO0LigwC9Vbd1aFaq8CoqV5+Q6ZsQfXY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZaDOgXBINQRes+Cycu69bRyBiPog6s4V3YeCZvztpOhPjbXiG74W40j+c8/aaY794v4fvozoSbX+DIYWb+L9A= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:e892:b0:180:1f9f:923e with SMTP id q18-20020a056870e89200b001801f9f923emr2901165oan.5.1681298122913; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:15:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:15:11 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:07=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote= : > > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.o= rg, > > larsi@gnus.org > > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:04 +0100 > > > > Had another idea: what about this very tiny patch, then? It makes `M-x > > package-install` work for installing a :core package. This also rhymes > > exactly with Stefan's intution/feeling that :core packages need to be > > "installed" to promote them to installable. The current M-x > > package-install recommendation could remain flawlessly and then you can > > do whatever you think is best for M-x package-update & friends. > > This has the same problem: it modifies a function that is called in > too many places. package-installed-p has half a dozen callers in > package.el alone. The change is tiny, but what about its > implications on every use case where it is involved? What about them? I volunteer to help test whichever cases you (or anyone else) think may be problematic. Can we put this tiny patch on master then? Maybe there's half a chance for a backport until the Emacs 29.1 release, or a quarter of a chance that some future Emacs 29.2 will also get it. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 07:21:42 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 11:21:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39205 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYXm-00034i-57 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:21:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45300) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYXj-00034W-PW for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:21:40 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYXd-0006Xl-OI; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:21:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=uUvo0TETpigpRex9Yym4zWD9I1xPP4ZcLHiHNHW6PcI=; b=hrwLmfeWQDL6CtsDHgJ/ fbXicVSFMk+woQidVihVJH1BepNaCl4UPXhBJNnZ8Kmf75Zzro/aH38gU+FIItO3BR1aVsKJ29aQG fgFJxn9gYXisDmaDsGML/6jvzQXgLytTI11Vp5uyfk4vui07pdMZ/k1l7hV+mt+VV4BVaGQLzVzp6 UkKRLOqQz5D/AhlN1HVWmHacytWSE2hqyjT5SvD/tk23njdazLFkRRJHcEWCuzSxoiwwy3U2vwLw2 zHIzqfmA8RQqZsV+a/9YNDIl9581LHQqeljgtGEXrIkEpfATCZNqgh17CgOgiiBZa3+y12xTzC5Pu GjmB0KY8gE9DBg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYXR-0001Hp-5e; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:21:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:22:05 +0300 Message-Id: <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:15:11 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:15:11 +0100 > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > > > This has the same problem: it modifies a function that is called in > > too many places. package-installed-p has half a dozen callers in > > package.el alone. The change is tiny, but what about its > > implications on every use case where it is involved? > > What about them? I volunteer to help test whichever cases you (or > anyone else) think may be problematic. We will never be able to reveal them all, let alone test them, before Emacs 29.1 is released. > Can we put this tiny patch on master then? Yes, if Philip and Stefan don't object. But, since there will be a command for updating core packages, doesn't this go against your desire not to change the UX? > Maybe there's half a chance for a backport until the Emacs 29.1 > release, or a quarter of a chance that some future Emacs 29.2 will > also get it. I don't think there is such a chance, and I'm not sure we even want that, given that we are leaning towards a new special command. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 07:35:44 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 11:35:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39212 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYlL-0005q5-Op for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:35:44 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:38777) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYlI-0005pq-FU for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:35:41 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-184518754bfso9769657fac.5 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:35:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681299334; x=1683891334; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=9tUaYAkdahc3apC135W33EKc26iOjbY0JDeHZ1MBuuU=; b=ewEJhG/z3tSMsZlb/anSLIOazYpEODbtygiF6PxgAP5be10TDyO+9/h0gaFz8lUFrO 76KE2PApRfE+7WF3fOoxNpjNhXyi+Bkq7dywhMjqLxkq0ySGq0D2kchtnMG/D5ke4BCA aA3zzpABd/xEbkvQzCzmaoGsSZ6BLCUPBXET1WkTEdIUiW0saWFiIuJTxVDEHiID2VOX 71anP5gpEevwYwFwOSabnmGC4i3yESWn1Ru6NXr+FPcDFbSdbhfk49y9a4WDFubJ5M6K u2W9HJqwazLPHQfmRnVQTgUWXWNm8YgSVgfrLV7lSarHKTdVDNyHw/sB3j+4HnCW1Ec6 cl3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681299334; x=1683891334; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9tUaYAkdahc3apC135W33EKc26iOjbY0JDeHZ1MBuuU=; b=wD3HdmrH1G+MR24d+tGS+E5xMlgacr+HincjVk8zZTYfo7EpDvV+YdY60DJgYZpySw gx1GqowpqKa8nLYz01SualiGOF8y4rDjdvbGGOIrHiH8RoKcAqL13MOsp8/JyEOMb2uf 9zJyvNVcESa2lLqLxFx9ev4HwCGg9nr7tymd7dw/rG7c0XIIRyI1NKOtAgmjr+bRN43f YVQMJX3xxsHkD66bVBaPdRLq1vc3ntrI0HiaWyvNjySxG0HzO+QaqK9kk5pUi7exfUHZ Jjr3qccX7kImma4XhIpQ/SROjnfSTQ2q+u7YeNmHHvfXHngnXgyiz1rypObVdZH4X0P3 DlMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dxtu6Cg57BEm2AyFd9972UJ7w5H2fRCxW339JvHcsblaNxLvGu EUVtVkWpuuHEOu0coPLckZ2WKWSXRLhF9zj6o2w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Zr5Eb8fHkhSKiSpjemb8rDMTdMGmmTGOK+dF3E8X+LxUstIma+Ohk998fjjvCcDO5nz0oM+WMNem55OBA8bss= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:c18f:b0:17f:2918:2f46 with SMTP id h15-20020a056870c18f00b0017f29182f46mr7851112oad.5.1681299334651; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:35:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:35:23 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:21=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote= : > > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:15:11 +0100 > > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org= , > > larsi@gnus.org > > > > > This has the same problem: it modifies a function that is called in > > > too many places. package-installed-p has half a dozen callers in > > > package.el alone. The change is tiny, but what about its > > > implications on every use case where it is involved? > > > > What about them? I volunteer to help test whichever cases you (or > > anyone else) think may be problematic. > > We will never be able to reveal them all, let alone test them, before > Emacs 29.1 is released. Were there even :core packages back in 2015 when this package-install safeguard was added in package-installed-p? I haven't checked, but I think not. I think this is just a plain oversight in an irregularly maintained library, if I've ever seen one. Why not just fix it? The other use cases of package-installed-p you mention pass a package-desc structure, and there this safeguard doesn't even exist (see the docstring). > > Can we put this tiny patch on master then? > > Yes, if Philip and Stefan don't object. But, since there will be a > command for updating core packages, doesn't this go against your > desire not to change the UX? IMO The user experience is bad/broken. So at least I want to change it, if minimally. That's what any bug report is about, to change UX for the better. Here, to let people not to have to go through odd hoops big or small to install packages or know if something is built-in/core or not. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 07:46:39 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 11:46:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39218 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYvv-00067C-4P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:46:39 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45242) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYvr-00066u-7I for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:46:37 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYvk-0003Hj-Ez; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:46:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=VOz7P5j3c5pr4z8JCYUYjV52EL2CJjKggmESuhXrBxA=; b=dg8NAePg6xNKpHOnf7hw WQwzcDxEINB6Ab7ROtiYmSWy7RAdw150rr/gOp6MV+gQDOZo2k+SU9v0RsgMxrUz6Fc+Pn0WHwvEl GNqA6dN4Bw44lJDciuyz4pyumkEjFbxtHF1CPJcMu1RpLvWvq2jQUSLBDu11SL6HeaiNNIbh2+h+8 qt2PNBuTgvX+DyH2Inz6m+PYN1ywEO1fQb/3E8xCSXv4zO40+ot3MouOaoUc5JMry3/CbXfc2BbFX EQtwUAX6OlfLI14JqfURZX6l+nzK6ELHDlLOTRKFU6cSxvfB6/0WLAunxs/kT++eIqa8P7cDLX5Ch 5d5vkclVhVqPRw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmYvh-00005M-Vj; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:46:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:47:10 +0300 Message-Id: <83leix7269.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:35:23 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:35:23 +0100 > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > > > > Can we put this tiny patch on master then? > > > > Yes, if Philip and Stefan don't object. But, since there will be a > > command for updating core packages, doesn't this go against your > > desire not to change the UX? > > IMO The user experience is bad/broken. We don't yet have the other command, let alone any user feedback. So I don't think you can know this is bad/broken yet. You may think so, but I happen to think differently, so let's not behave as if this is a fact already. > So at least I want to change it, if minimally. That's what any bug > report is about, to change UX for the better. Here, to let people > not to have to go through odd hoops big or small to install packages > or know if something is built-in/core or not. Using a specialized command for a special job is nowhere near jumping through hoops. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 07:59:52 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 11:59:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39223 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZ8h-0006dY-KV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:59:52 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:44793) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZ8d-0006dI-52 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:59:50 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EBB724029F for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:59:41 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681300781; bh=wvGasOmQMr4peAhd4Nv4QKfjIHYjziFBHLncwN100ME=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=ELhLVONQ+vyxmWVo/MuBagJ5AdYWhRxD/2eoOINMPAiJzSlD1pZ4mWxL4Om7NoyQJ +TUkjtWPuqkgbUP15j0Lao4D6K3sADtGeSpfndjnbyBnq6Nggdk9n/njJ6c9EfsKt/ aoai9kfNu251fjabExRS+sc18u071YKyjUTTuxkCu7YE7o6Cxg0bciVqmcQPiOLntT ArKqBHaayZlYVNSkHMkMksuio8ri4ImuL0Pu/Cu38w9dfOFmN0XGhYUqp5oMOG8ETR YfrHb5XHH+AT8z/ciydFRQqItmbyODRLaM7+d+TlDFIPlJ9WAoVnAaUYlzqgGUM/Uw l8MKNreQ/yuTw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PxLqJ4Pl3z6tvb; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:59:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:22:05 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:09 +0000 Message-ID: <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora >> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:15:11 +0100 >> Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org,= =20 >> larsi@gnus.org >>=20 >> > This has the same problem: it modifies a function that is called in >> > too many places. package-installed-p has half a dozen callers in >> > package.el alone. The change is tiny, but what about its >> > implications on every use case where it is involved? >>=20 >> What about them? I volunteer to help test whichever cases you (or >> anyone else) think may be problematic. > > We will never be able to reveal them all, let alone test them, before > Emacs 29.1 is released. > >> Can we put this tiny patch on master then? > > Yes, if Philip and Stefan don't object. But, since there will be a > command for updating core packages, doesn't this go against your > desire not to change the UX? After thinking about this for a bit, I think that the right approach is to use package-install instead of writing a separate command. After all, this will make the behaviour of package-install consistent with that of the package menu. It might work but it should be tested somewhat thoroughly before the patch is applied. In the meantime, I just finished a similar approach that does not modify `package-installed-p', but just adds another utility function: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..5a79c277f0d 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -797,6 +797,14 @@ package-built-in-p (require 'finder-inf nil t) ; For `package--builtins'. (assq package package--builtins)))))) +(defun package-core-p (package) + "Return non-nil the built-in version of PACKAGE is loaded." + (let ((package (if (package-desc-p package) + (package-desc-name package) + package))) + (and (assq package (package--alist)) + (package-built-in-p package)))) + (defun package--autoloads-file-name (pkg-desc) "Return the absolute name of the autoloads file, sans extension. PKG-DESC is a `package-desc' object." @@ -1908,7 +1916,7 @@ package-compute-transaction (package-version-join (package-desc-version already))))) (cond (already nil) - ((package-installed-p next-pkg next-version) nil) + ((package-core-p (car next-pkg))) ;done (t ;; A package is required, but not installed. It might also be @@ -2205,11 +2213,9 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (seq-filter + (lambda (elt) (package-core-p (car elt))) + package-archive-contents) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain >> Maybe there's half a chance for a backport until the Emacs 29.1 >> release, or a quarter of a chance that some future Emacs 29.2 will >> also get it. > > I don't think there is such a chance, and I'm not sure we even want > that, given that we are leaning towards a new special command. --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 08:01:28 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 12:01:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39232 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZAF-0006iG-PW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:01:28 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f170.google.com ([209.85.167.170]:41867) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZAC-0006i2-7x for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:01:26 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f170.google.com with SMTP id ec6so769591oib.8 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:01:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681300878; x=1683892878; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=dU5XB9SMnhEW/PaKF6eXJQBK7Jwa46S2iVZoccf7Pv8=; b=syZ3g6QasTe34eNKMok4VyOnv7vdrQ3FqsBZtvX7+I1OPcnlM+UXBsGIxt2GV+KEZo 8OMQOIAHdFWcZUuu5dCdjlWXQCmBsgCqz557VYwNdZaz2qTDR38YCs33Az//x644oqCN Sv6Rwwt9cbutzrXyi3irxHYBB4KFPJJLOOrqGzeScMe6E/6tqZZ4fyibbxoHM4GkQkSI qdt66FLw3gODkBKwJ1wOQEmoyDjp7BUjKDI5J/cBfl+D0FqOVdoZw2WzGp5jb/1iSNg5 yR8Fe1uPK7RFcdTpTjaMXM+U29DLQT0J/o42AfPEMBXLJGslvRtO0wrAE125hcKbxf3E l+rQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681300878; x=1683892878; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dU5XB9SMnhEW/PaKF6eXJQBK7Jwa46S2iVZoccf7Pv8=; b=evIe4bCDGUMxqoWJTxmHnKpOsNhWn0p9kVvuc3bRYE3TykHTW55xszvwM66x7Ura9P ySmDGQqGn3Ps/cH2Bodk/Q/xFWFEzkN/e9mzhSUVR2JsLjcdgsrIrfQDAEyXpB/HPkBX 2rGlyYD5vGww5vMu9W9UsSv7j7qYe4EURhHWQWb5vMreyY5KEBgquKfv0ykyqbv+Kqt1 FJfUQiUFLfWFfERZUDr/GtIyx0jbMsRfmMabJSdw/a0V1MJYknAnPBlHwXFKcwG+p90Z Ao0dw9H1h9fNsOjHaQWJJFkJa+8xHYVtKnVyRRcRbWQ5ZfMG3iGlgyucINycNJIvHy4j 81rQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fOp4bxmfWmtJ1NPBHCILaOy7vHwTQabWZgS//dGMotuS+50Sl5 tZh6jdHDilwQJBjBPqW23U774nZvhQ81b31njuI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bmedyO2Asa0XcrsBzDNgZfhyRDcEIH0q6diTS6ZTA8fxV14UrAtM7545RCQGvMOh/VzWGkkSTn6ZHtU975orA= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:190a:b0:36e:f6f7:bb1a with SMTP id bf10-20020a056808190a00b0036ef6f7bb1amr4779307oib.5.1681300878374; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:01:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <83leix7269.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83leix7269.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:01:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:46=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote= : > > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:35:23 +0100 > > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org= , > > larsi@gnus.org > > > > > > Can we put this tiny patch on master then? > > > > > > Yes, if Philip and Stefan don't object. But, since there will be a > > > command for updating core packages, doesn't this go against your > > > desire not to change the UX? > > > > IMO The user experience is bad/broken. > > We don't yet have the other command, let alone any user feedback. So > I don't think you can know this is bad/broken yet. You may think so, > but I happen to think differently, so let's not behave as if this is a > fact already. I was talking about the current state, obviously. It's bad/broken, IMO, as I described the original bug report, and noone really contested that I think. As to the new command you're proposing I think we'll both agree that it's adding _new_ UX to the Emacs 29 pretest, something which is at least infrequent. > > So at least I want to change it, if minimally. That's what any bug > > report is about, to change UX for the better. Here, to let people > > not to have to go through odd hoops big or small to install packages > > or know if something is built-in/core or not. > > Using a specialized command for a special job is nowhere near jumping > through hoops. Right. But we fundamentally disagree that this is a "special job". There's 0 reason why it should be. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 08:16:52 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 12:16:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39238 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZP9-000758-GA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:16:52 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f45.google.com ([209.85.221.45]:42792) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZP4-00074p-HI for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:16:49 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f45.google.com with SMTP id l18so10615408wrb.9 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:16:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681301800; x=1683893800; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=5vahmZgYPo1Sr5o0m8du7USPOFAMVuO/sbf987ioWG0=; b=WM152rh7v1BQLLab/sCjDtbF0FOM53hkajb5YMhei2s509KoW43TzPT4umSYJRAJFY eQhn7sSuSn5PBVsLCE6GsO++UNtgHz5WcL3oOmXaFYf+eHaXOwQFjwYBVz3KZUTtN1ru /izy4MBPVHlBH5iCo2KtSid3adfRd/JwSVf+TSsU5ld1YF+pihbRMNAs7dfxozHbJRXo iNb9Ht//PAtB/xZ5JxH89OiAx711EyEu2AvEu/5xdeXXV23x1haW8WdFZVa88WuM9lXN /JjxI8tudFBTIa37YiGLNBSk1GwqgQ6EEFI9z+EbOpJa9dAriXO39miPbL0DAVzwmx5t LMew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681301800; x=1683893800; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5vahmZgYPo1Sr5o0m8du7USPOFAMVuO/sbf987ioWG0=; b=byKQnRA+21yW6H1it0hXLRXikKcIk/1j41xn1C28IsvGBiYxSILnYgMJW6a6kLY6Iq L89G21kBVfXZwjsAfRzZ5yrDku3EbJJKS/dc+5I5Ta8TSypKGWkqk6X0AzKKvcsOigQx KRme/7d7qShSg4JcsVSYWn71MPhIEtNlQUCi9yWZmnlTFFDoQQW3IikfxqcH6hXzPRTX CDwJvkIAuBtpuE3IfiVNfAB9WqivOpiB9YpOj9TcNWXsgg8Ob5hmAV79qNvsUr58by6q s6o8FBUZtRNLntZjdr9Yg6/5Eo2F8Mjhg/C9sdwBMmO56MQyPkVkWfLOpRc51McxOBHE AVZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dR8s1keQ9De6QY88lEkGHaRjspK8RtAjNQRCK1YeXdx2z6T5jx de7lwHUNQ0QgEP0ZUlp/kqY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZeYD2nrVq5JYU+qs1APBAc5Dj7wq+Di0APLdyg12yxPj+QaiWZPMs7U5DMx6FAKsbG7dylDA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e252:0:b0:2ef:b052:1296 with SMTP id bl18-20020adfe252000000b002efb0521296mr1670803wrb.22.1681301800398; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w11-20020a5d680b000000b002da75c5e143sm17077270wru.29.2023.04.12.05.16.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:16:39 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: Philip Kaludercic Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:09 +0000") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:18:45 +0100 Message-ID: <87r0spjntm.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) Philip Kaludercic writes: >>> Can we put this tiny patch on master then? >> >> Yes, if Philip and Stefan don't object. But, since there will be a >> command for updating core packages, doesn't this go against your >> desire not to change the UX? > > After thinking about this for a bit, I think that the right approach is > to use package-install instead of writing a separate command. After > all, this will make the behaviour of package-install consistent with > that of the package menu. +1000 > It might work but it should be tested somewhat thoroughly before the > patch is applied. In the meantime, I just finished a similar approach > that does not modify `package-installed-p', but just adds another > utility function: I've just applied it, re-made emacs, tested with Emacs -Q and now M-x package-install doesn't offer _any_ completions to install, core or non-core. Is this what you intended? Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 08:28:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 12:28:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39244 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZa9-0007MC-0n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:28:13 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:58347) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZa3-0007Lu-O9 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:28:11 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BD082403F1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:28:01 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681302481; bh=b9E6NWUI5c7bybzGS60TIoPg/hCa84PSc+s0YjnDZZM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=aPwrudUx98QfQbTXhKbBXlviG/OXiCZVkWBvRf8iJxKG+5nKNX/shPhf5uDdpFQTW pXE7LTAHdfwfChEI/3VDsGKNImg9Ka2UKBhkAMPLgINjxpkdl+ml31nIaxV7Gy+LEf MqzKPuiO5vDp/XFDwVUzCZissQOx44SiHxZ7hO09wCs0wGPjVbtbUwQZuggdaj2k6P Zx63HakpG/mip/+UHuvg02xBHLaJQR9U7yeFK+5U1OAZWj7MKoaNyUiIoiELjGnKl+ z9+fNU4vQ4xDrumFf1P7BRz2f7WQeLh/MeNXiXALPJgRJd0UE+Zjq5LFImXbWlITT1 fE26CJebNtQEg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PxMS00mJ3z9rxP; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:28:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87r0spjntm.fsf@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vor?= =?utf-8?Q?a=22's?= message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:18:45 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <87r0spjntm.fsf@gmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:28:28 +0000 Message-ID: <87ile1thcj.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > Philip Kaludercic writes: > >>>> Can we put this tiny patch on master then? >>> >>> Yes, if Philip and Stefan don't object. But, since there will be a >>> command for updating core packages, doesn't this go against your >>> desire not to change the UX? >> >> After thinking about this for a bit, I think that the right approach is >> to use package-install instead of writing a separate command. After >> all, this will make the behaviour of package-install consistent with >> that of the package menu. > > +1000 > >> It might work but it should be tested somewhat thoroughly before the >> patch is applied. In the meantime, I just finished a similar approach >> that does not modify `package-installed-p', but just adds another >> utility function: > > I've just applied it, re-made emacs, tested with Emacs -Q and now M-x > package-install doesn't offer _any_ completions to install, core or > non-core. Is this what you intended? No, that was my mistake (I changed something last minute before applying the patch). This patch should behave properly: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-Allow-upgrading-built-in-packages.patch >From 8c742056f2669a21de16488652e114cba8c8147a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Philip Kaludercic Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:26:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Allow upgrading built-in packages * lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el (package-core-p): Add new utility function. (package-compute-transaction): Check if an installed package is built-in while resolving dependencies and allow it to be installed. (package-install): Suggest upgrading built-in packages in the interactive specification. --- lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..91fbbb11f68 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -797,6 +797,20 @@ package-built-in-p (require 'finder-inf nil t) ; For `package--builtins'. (assq package package--builtins)))))) +(defun package-core-p (package) + "Return non-nil the built-in version of PACKAGE is loaded. +This command differs from `package-built-in-p' in that it only +returns a non-nil value if the user has not installed a more a +more recent version of the package from a package archive." + (and (not (assq (cond + ((package-desc-p package) + (package-desc-name package)) + ((stringp package) (intern package)) + ((symbolp package) package) + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) + (package--alist))) + (package-built-in-p package))) + (defun package--autoloads-file-name (pkg-desc) "Return the absolute name of the autoloads file, sans extension. PKG-DESC is a `package-desc' object." @@ -1908,7 +1922,16 @@ package-compute-transaction (package-version-join (package-desc-version already))))) (cond (already nil) - ((package-installed-p next-pkg next-version) nil) + ;; If a package is installed, we don't need to continue. + ;; Built-in packages constitute an exception, because we want + ;; to allow the user to "upgrade" from a built-in version to a + ;; potentially newer version available on ELPA (bug#62720). + ((and (package-installed-p next-pkg next-version) + (not (package-core-p next-pkg)))) + ;; The pseudo-package Emacs is always installed and built-in. + ;; It cannot be upgraded, so we make sure not to proceed beyond + ;; this point when resolving dependencies. + ((eq next-pkg 'emacs)) (t ;; A package is required, but not installed. It might also be @@ -2205,11 +2228,12 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (and (or (not (package-installed-p (car elt))) + (package-core-p (car elt))) + (list (car elt)))) + package-archive-contents) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) -- 2.39.2 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 08:29:50 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 12:29:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39249 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZbh-0007OS-MW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:29:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50428) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZbd-0007OD-Mi for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:29:48 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZbW-0003ap-Py; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:29:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=pZx6NDCA1geUdAdLoyBCwhYG2u2RyRHS5mTBhthTXEk=; b=VAnEPxlbK7oPxbuvglkl a3+xhYMI8RNnnkpxJDIbXHsLsB/L3UhP4A0VehFmrwEaYoGZPbm2liGPwRXR4pbMa5WqL2JW/1uNs slPc0VK4YU08BNnk+M6dXMhB3DqA9uif/KU7GmD7ktGgSOXB0g5BhwuOoNC3B09Kl0FtjgyPKWLmR nnlVOplOal3MYgQ3dcdHsgUsViS+5Ib3gzAiSLsJX1dAtbzjxT9NwBGZz1g/RDdHF0RUQpe9ICgUP EExq9PxfmW9h8U24W9dpfYjXw3Kkmemn2yqPF2cmo+6G6PIB+L0XrLSKHcS/KQ0lrWcKa26ZabrC3 bh4YUx+Kpe8sew==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZbT-0006RR-DV; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:29:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:30:20 +0300 Message-Id: <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:09 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: João Távora , > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:09 +0000 > > > Yes, if Philip and Stefan don't object. But, since there will be a > > command for updating core packages, doesn't this go against your > > desire not to change the UX? > > After thinking about this for a bit, I think that the right approach is > to use package-install instead of writing a separate command. After > all, this will make the behaviour of package-install consistent with > that of the package menu. Is this for master or for the release branch? And I thought we all agreed built-in packages need special treatment anyway, didn't we? Then why having a separate command is not a natural next step? > It might work but it should be tested somewhat thoroughly before the > patch is applied. In the meantime, I just finished a similar approach > that does not modify `package-installed-p', but just adds another > utility function: A new utility function is fine by me, even if this is e branch. But I don't quite understand how this is supposed to work in package-install to allow updating built-in packages, and do that in a way that will not touch the existing code for non-built-in packages in significant ways (assuming you propose this from the release branch). Can you elaborate on that? > +(defun package-core-p (package) > + "Return non-nil the built-in version of PACKAGE is loaded." Didn't you say the "core" terminology was confusing people? > + (let ((package (if (package-desc-p package) > + (package-desc-name package) > + package))) > + (and (assq package (package--alist)) > + (package-built-in-p package)))) It sounds like this doesn't check whether a package is "core", it checks whether it's built-in and can be updated? So maybe the name should be changed to reflect that? And the doc string as well (what it means by "is loaded")? Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 08:37:59 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 12:37:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39257 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZja-0007bd-Ne for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:37:58 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f178.google.com ([209.85.167.178]:33672) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZjZ-0007bR-SN for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:37:58 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f178.google.com with SMTP id cd20so1175356oib.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681303072; x=1683895072; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=DcE5wakwl8C+NHB7riJayE2bMJ6tWyTboF5JaJAqtK8=; b=aqYLPw5tUO5gXb5M7tpl7gvviDZLywBMvlV980Mel7cUSd2uTl6W34cTshOj6/HDiN 8kukWNZEX6mH0XYESPNqeppGAJXnx6Hcx3bvnCABmu6MPOz4Y4cz0YB4CBiNgph3Zeey KEwCPOKikCwZhYSqbUByLCQNW9gjhuvr+pu0NkXZqu7GXTPYT3Tzu34ybswK1Ls5tCdo z+qKAnSKij06RmRm3psAeHya+I/L4rfsP3G+UmVi2KatL3097QBZ5c4lhIQVL/3Vv39X 5UWrV7Hm+HHZxCUjukDz7xPWjlnwT/eMzv85MybSinLccsyuAaejcYSSCG15Vye+qgtq U51Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681303072; x=1683895072; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DcE5wakwl8C+NHB7riJayE2bMJ6tWyTboF5JaJAqtK8=; b=jg24N/W4/xj6WXF6AzOlAtQI/6oG5C2R/e+qoqqIhCivZUOky1DfTlEs+dHH6roCzS uqBF7K34VTpr0/bqulp/wDbeDJ4zDfGXeX4w1umj3zdtfGnGebP4KBvxldZP/wohXvW8 8Rn2bA9/cYUxOl9JpCNYcRAGlYYp7OHf6mqb9OSS0c47h7vy1KjmL9Z7VdusE34T9154 3LxAz8W1K2osBjAehpbnyOW3NJpngc1S4S6IBoTvlLZF9p/J/gdPY0w9UGQXqWyiDUWw vSgd2IVwlxC7IEKjliEhcu4C11SAVOVlh7RMjqNjRSSKIlB3RrD/zVCeBujq4mvYGE10 H+6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ei+tF+W3U3E21iO0+wtzdEXycPWOylpKhO4J2VmkRX2xIwETYT FlViksQdJCBc+geT/p40i429VHFcapudIPUDKdM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350b5Y9NJLCPCjfe8AqoIUga/FdiAuJFu5x6QBUKbR9yhzqBCjJp3bt+2tgQyIJjJ6BSquszd5lamYwAmhR//gGI= X-Received: by 2002:aca:ea83:0:b0:384:1cf9:912e with SMTP id i125-20020acaea83000000b003841cf9912emr570045oih.5.1681303072084; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:37:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <83zg7e8d2d.fsf@gnu.org> <83o7nt8x8a.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz49lar3.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h77f7.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83wn2h77f7.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:37:40 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:53=E2=80=AFAM Eli Zaretskii wrote= : > I did just > > emacs -Q > M-x list-packages RET > > and I still see what I described. > > I get the same if I point HOME to a scratch empty directory. > > Maybe it's a Windows thing? why are some dependencies marked as "not > available"? Can't reproduce on Windows, either. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 08:55:44 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 12:55:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39289 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pma0l-0008H7-MB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:55:43 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52]:47085) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pma0j-0008Gt-9d for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:55:42 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f52.google.com with SMTP id f7-20020a4ab647000000b0054101f316c7so5034678ooo.13 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:55:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681304135; x=1683896135; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=6lfJ0lfXCNAj+YD4fvAvA1rxt/0A5DgC5/si0K7O01U=; b=os0SgPe8ZAkbLcbTkRpalys/TCkO7IfOSVFKuSDv1mABD5bGlCpFKKE7S5Q9KFC8C5 Elj63r+snidS7blTMPLGBh5lkMRpu8SCVtYxLc0D43dzPIqRZUbzawvLBg9pCsy8mDD/ eVyIctRBUTDZGOPLFj6bDWAgsiwOwOgtad0HraDjAD+CsVnfSv2l4WgDAJbU1FNwgdUR D1ByiV2zDpO1C/cAHfN5g4G/Rgy1w0MY71ESHmZ1T96Zb0+ZBtj6sK1eEmBM+uoHvtSh nTqzgs49dzc0qC6WC2Q4Mw6eg/AhDgJcTBl0bHqNCrX+BBiuQMZO7cb3An+Y6/q5Y2L9 /6pg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681304135; x=1683896135; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6lfJ0lfXCNAj+YD4fvAvA1rxt/0A5DgC5/si0K7O01U=; b=RLrC2703IR6ocf+WlJFmLheBebyHeyZyt758FT9aZ3+sszAOsn6T+SlAbmDxAkrw/H XEJpdNrzh+gCPvwZ9ydWXroQ6aKCCzhk5+Q1kvorknwIkfBzL61XqVGPKBS5L/CWetJZ t/xeFaK0qJ2tqrDxo9dIPdwFnbcPItia2WlUVX94Y/WnZtOdU/WldYc8JATE3Oy+QKAI /eOg1/Y+rVF++iTzocaW4x++0OXAjY2TtCuKzmKZANsUALaDgYMgSfNmDJ8GhHTBxRu8 OgLYX9t7Ur8z2GofRJFILQeNQTzcxDN+1U4RDD3g+3JFRrIPPPGImmm3+jt3g8NPwdnA a4Hg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eHXrp/l4GY10oPjE0KYN8M0oN/79YLIj579cYMlU9TNOKxeF1k Ot+rU0bkwG+x+u6zn3fx1FwcBdATTXFycRB7AyI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aQxknuJ8cSmuQlviGoENO9BRJz2klosWgcB8DzsPzAmRLjOswAyuiv0A2JTGIPS6+w71wmoKlgedZ81hDS7wE= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:ea97:0:b0:53e:86b1:dac0 with SMTP id r23-20020a4aea97000000b0053e86b1dac0mr4207536ooh.1.1681304135544; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:55:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <87r0spjntm.fsf@gmail.com> <87ile1thcj.fsf@posteo.net> In-Reply-To: <87ile1thcj.fsf@posteo.net> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:55:24 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Philip Kaludercic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 1:28=E2=80=AFPM Philip Kaludercic wrote: > > I've just applied it, re-made emacs, tested with Emacs -Q and now M-x > > package-install doesn't offer _any_ completions to install, core or > > non-core. Is this what you intended? > > No, that was my mistake (I changed something last minute before applying > the patch). This patch should behave properly: Can confirm it does for M-x package-install. I hope this patch goes far, but maybe rename package-core-p to package--core-p and there's a duplicate "a more" in its docstring. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 09:20:11 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 13:20:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39340 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmaOQ-0000TB-Uz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:20:11 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:51719) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmaOL-0000SM-Iq for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:20:08 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 730F124041A for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:19:59 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681305599; bh=IwIIR7QWhXdryfPPgxtZ8ReVHhx5G5zXhvb2agOiigk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=bj72xWruIkK0v/k/Kr2IDnqwmw/M8WzDoEafL0EMmJ1mYoSbI/LQGizPrPUMEhusG 3I2bYILh9PWh4/NlZ+TxP6ETcZrlh913LptI9HRKz8MOvZC3e5PJxxvQH5RplhQ1Mq 9cKilrcZW/2V6PU1EAxUnW4o1flIbUeUvFVEuPYwSxPrZzOXk2vnDbiDTCLCcfdqDh tJdeBOtFXg3xrg5FIvM8L51ZvSJ+THG4bmNCChW3hjg7To12jt8kF9nHbNTLLs9jwa PdfIPvVNhVwJVj9ek9rCuUy/NGagQ6GxGR1MVS7iOuDvx2br6hJDOtPxHth4q9YKo7 o0piJ9Nbgf6Pw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PxNby208Hz9rxF; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:19:58 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83wn2h77f7.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:53:48 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <83zg7e8d2d.fsf@gnu.org> <83o7nt8x8a.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz49lar3.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h77f7.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:20:27 +0000 Message-ID: <87a5zdtexw.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora >> Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, >> 62720@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:18:08 +0100 >>=20 >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >>=20 >> >> Btw, why, when I do "M-x list-packages RET", I see Eglot in red with >> >> Status "incompat"? If I press RET on its name, I see >> >>=20 >> >> Package eglot is incompatible. >> >>=20 >> >> Status: Incompatible because it depends on uninstallable pack= ages. >> >>=20 >> >> Why is that? >> >>=20 >> >> No idea. Is this with our without my patch? >> > >> > Without. >>=20 >> I can't reproduce this in a recent emacs-29. Here's what I start Emacs >> with >>=20 >> HOME=3D`mktemp -d` && src/emacs -Q -f list-packages >>=20 >> I get: >>=20 >> Status: Available from gnu -- [Install] > > I did just > > emacs -Q > M-x list-packages RET > > and I still see what I described. > > I get the same if I point HOME to a scratch empty directory. > > Maybe it's a Windows thing? why are some dependencies marked as "not > available"? > > Package eglot is incompatible. > > Status: Incompatible because it depends on uninstallable packages. > Archive: gnu > Version: 1.14 > Commit: 8125d4cfc5605ead9102b7d823c4241029eb76cc > Summary: The Emacs Client for LSP servers > Requires: emacs-26.3, jsonrpc-1.0.16, flymake-1.2.1, > project-0.9.8 (not available), xref-1.6.2 (not available), > eldoc-1.14.0, seq-2.23 (not available), > external-completion-0.1 (not available) On GNU/Linux: I have experienced a similar issue to this one in the past, but found that it resolved itself without any action on my end after a while. Sadly I did not take the time to investigate what is going on, but I believe that this is a subtle bug in package.el. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 09:42:37 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 13:42:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39385 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmak8-00012q-CG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:42:36 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:37785) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmak5-00012Y-DM for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:42:34 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F2AB240105 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:42:27 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681306947; bh=0oGXnOWMD9epxcYMG6dyZUaQf0TCn3MxKgNiJctRdfU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=FNsoZykaCsajsf78J/LN85dxlxEAyzgAwdaBjY/mkX7uvDGFViwmyvOIU9is5zc2d NyEic3hdV2QjcUjF3YbA32vRoBbSah7Kl0GmspswfHAIDVjUIfWRx0kdaky8vpjJpI ewaGnquho62kziWhKvpcqSKpo0CbepmYFy9qjGsi9twJePy/+tlPgyFKvCuSCFsfRp 1LMHacBs9DkO7N/pC/wFJJGIwlXnorzQjffD1RvW7tVtogcMJKcpRI0+olyuWH5V9Z yqjAdRxvewvFXphUJwttL2e4HqE3TTO85UMkxQZ0oNVMGVBGosKvLBqZ6sNdRHeKje MqMUKeyxVWecw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PxP5t57ZYz9rxK; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:42:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:30:20 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:42:56 +0000 Message-ID: <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora , >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, >> 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:09 +0000 >>=20 >> > Yes, if Philip and Stefan don't object. But, since there will be a >> > command for updating core packages, doesn't this go against your >> > desire not to change the UX? >>=20 >> After thinking about this for a bit, I think that the right approach is >> to use package-install instead of writing a separate command. After >> all, this will make the behaviour of package-install consistent with >> that of the package menu. > > Is this for master or for the release branch? Personally I am indifferent, it should be compatible with both > And I thought we all agreed built-in packages need special treatment > anyway, didn't we? Then why having a separate command is not a > natural next step? I don't necessarily agree that "special treatment" requires a separate command. I think it is wrong the assume that an built-in package should automatically be updated to a ELPA package whenever possible. It might be that I misunderstood something about your long-term plan where package-install wouldn't suffice. I'll go re-read the thread to check. >> It might work but it should be tested somewhat thoroughly before the >> patch is applied. In the meantime, I just finished a similar approach >> that does not modify `package-installed-p', but just adds another >> utility function: > > A new utility function is fine by me, even if this is e branch. But I > don't quite understand how this is supposed to work in package-install > to allow updating built-in packages, and do that in a way that will > not touch the existing code for non-built-in packages in significant > ways (assuming you propose this from the release branch). Can you > elaborate on that? The only reason we couldn't install built-in packages is that when planning to install packages `package-compute-transaction' believes that if a built-in package is provided, then everything is fine and we don't need to proceed with installing any packages. All I propose is to lift this assumption, then this works fine. One point that might be deliberated is that this means all built-in dependencies are also installed, even if these are not strictly necessary. It shouldn't matter that much, since most users would upgrade them eventually, but worth mentioning I guess?=20 >> +(defun package-core-p (package) >> + "Return non-nil the built-in version of PACKAGE is loaded." > > Didn't you say the "core" terminology was confusing people? TBH I am not really satisfied with the name (so any other suggestion is just as fine for me), and as Joao said it would be better to make the predicate as internal so that users are not expected to deal with it. >> + (let ((package (if (package-desc-p package) >> + (package-desc-name package) >> + package))) >> + (and (assq package (package--alist)) >> + (package-built-in-p package)))) > > It sounds like this doesn't check whether a package is "core", it > checks whether it's built-in and can be updated? So maybe the name > should be changed to reflect that? And the doc string as well (what > it means by "is loaded")? Right the "loaded" doesn't make sense. How about this: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-Allow-upgrading-built-in-packages.patch >From 12e0b209992675a042112e790571d427a003c30d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Philip Kaludercic Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:26:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Allow upgrading built-in packages * lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el (package--upgradable-built-in-p): Add new utility predicate. (package-compute-transaction): Check if an installed package is built-in while resolving dependencies and allow it to be installed. (package-install): Suggest upgrading built-in packages in the interactive specification. Allow upgrading built-in packages --- lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..2cf98290bba 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -797,6 +797,20 @@ package-built-in-p (require 'finder-inf nil t) ; For `package--builtins'. (assq package package--builtins)))))) +(defun package--upgradable-built-in-p (package) + "Check if a built-in PACKAGE can be upgraded. +This command differs from `package-built-in-p' in that it only +returns a non-nil value if the user has not installed a more +recent version of the package from a package archive." + (and (not (assq (cond + ((package-desc-p package) + (package-desc-name package)) + ((stringp package) (intern package)) + ((symbolp package) package) + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) + (package--alist))) + (package-built-in-p package))) + (defun package--autoloads-file-name (pkg-desc) "Return the absolute name of the autoloads file, sans extension. PKG-DESC is a `package-desc' object." @@ -1908,7 +1922,16 @@ package-compute-transaction (package-version-join (package-desc-version already))))) (cond (already nil) - ((package-installed-p next-pkg next-version) nil) + ;; If a package is installed, we don't need to continue. + ;; Built-in packages constitute an exception, because we want + ;; to allow the user to "upgrade" from a built-in version to a + ;; potentially newer version available on ELPA (bug#62720). + ((and (not (package--upgradable-built-in-p next-pkg)) + (package-installed-p next-pkg next-version))) + ;; The pseudo-package Emacs is always installed and built-in. + ;; It cannot be upgraded, so we make sure not to proceed beyond + ;; this point when resolving dependencies. + ((eq next-pkg 'emacs)) (t ;; A package is required, but not installed. It might also be @@ -2205,11 +2228,12 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (and (or (package--upgradable-built-in-p (car elt)) + (not (package-installed-p (car elt)))) + (list (car elt)))) + package-archive-contents) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) -- 2.39.2 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 10:11:12 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 14:11:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40540 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmbBo-0002KS-1u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:11:12 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:49328) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmbBm-0002KD-2h for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:11:10 -0400 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 73D128091E; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 47D15805D6; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:11:03 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1681308663; bh=4XAcpuVxxZmeUCCTV4YeEohws9d0tuP0CszJr/FcJTo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=K9ibl9L643jfyjDnTlaxYI+/rYmej7xV6Ez5ni3zwMX+GR+Ln06ffn5WP3RoGY3/J nllNNK6gTdw3jBflwolVipjgVy5mRlpD2MsS61PwOtMTDhKhmMH818LSmZ32ixNhgE RjcfnjQYe4qrfA6ihI3EKMLh8sNG7UIp9cGJsf/+ymKVSopmWQjUVKI5iIe2xjpPu+ PUoWQA3Hk5+OktOAbWtAZ/iUZmhnsl0HTxhRShwjawQKUxc13AyB4GZtNN8EIZBM2k 55z3Yg2HBZnTNQOhtr3mv95kKsHYbFnXg8yhMXBs/mp4peFBslIdPx3mxqzp0uh3jA 6Ydb/iepf/RFA== Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.217.176]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBBA41202F2; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:11:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Philip Kaludercic Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:42:56 +0000") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:11:02 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.044 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) >>> +(defun package-core-p (package) >>> + "Return non-nil the built-in version of PACKAGE is loaded." >> >> Didn't you say the "core" terminology was confusing people? > > TBH I am not really satisfied with the name (so any other suggestion is > just as fine for me), and as Joao said it would be better to make the > predicate as internal so that users are not expected to deal with it. Beside "core" and "built-in" (with or without dash), another name that's been used over the years is "bundled". I don't have a strong preference between those. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 10:14:19 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 14:14:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40545 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmbEp-0002PJ-Id for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:14:19 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:58796) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmbEo-0002P7-3n for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:14:18 -0400 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D2D0C8091E; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:14:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A5AE280148; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:14:11 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1681308851; bh=UkDGw0yXNLCxurbSRG63rtzxqugpn+7YEFQXZmYKNXA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=bulAwrXzVf6T9MkcI4gPILt+SkfZGRMLyk24BVV1dABRR+T85wIkdiEexY5a45KM+ AZzqkIzXyBOucpVWMZLUTxMHXjKZYL39u45AiLRPbm9Wlw35pv1zMVK17VOBNApoGo aETIIw1EuEHZdg+MgXZNZjJMW5rwFtmgKiMPZZgQQbSHaDfYvfH4Cq8+7sk5ZPbnO2 qN4P3DDkhDhGaKNb4Pun8tOGZiO8Mr6h2ceFCps13e5LaX59D1gFzyF7Hh8rbNEYdW a2jw2qxnoUT9zycIVQSkeRcrxvWW56wSV6NJrS7y1ouAEEXYzr2r7h06fl59Ofgy6Q YbYgZU4qGih3g== Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.217.176]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F1D41202F2; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:14:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83r0sp8xih.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:44:54 +0300") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83r0sp8xih.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:14:10 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.042 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) >> 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: we will FWIW, I'm not sure it's needed: when the user asks to `package-update` the Eglot package, then we should upgrade `eglot`, regardless if it's builtin. My comment was specifically for `M-x package-update-all`. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 10:14:31 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 14:14:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40548 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmbF0-0002Pn-VZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:14:31 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f175.google.com ([209.85.167.175]:37638) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmbEz-0002PW-3c for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:14:30 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f175.google.com with SMTP id bm45so2061726oib.4 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:14:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681308863; x=1683900863; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=CdPDb+UPASKPbjGsn7EwlwlumcZZXA6fVygqvRiXzl0=; b=BipLAPIZ2deYyy4YvlkmuPpRD13e4HBXoyTNlATj7k1z+2m0dyvgDzQF532MvL8aZJ kcPf99fbrHxWeth1b1ZX/fCcO5TTSeFt4QEUFN6ZnfUt0HCl1j8fLgWQIQkPmQCG/Z1f T0YkAH7CJ9rh31Pb9HtMCLwzP0UNOtYvb0HlkRwDn6dBHy84dwJ5JpHTlYY5jN3p+T88 w5s7dzsY5y8LzGxtiNNyTld7THZ+7atneHB6jOGpkeKPfkY03wuJ0ub6Tcc6XxJ/6IeN tI2Mutl0S8uYoQcNbtS84DRmK/SIqtTfq8ZLlXwzwWKk2GL7FDk5SMFJkTcw6yxdX01Y rxOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681308863; x=1683900863; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CdPDb+UPASKPbjGsn7EwlwlumcZZXA6fVygqvRiXzl0=; b=Q8sQN2aGtL2aJcDQwiOo7ptQLFs6O5+THy7XRwodmn+h4PDdZEFTr/72ATpXR7hII3 ch9OfvwccpsHqeIHo7hhk2QJJawCSYpcBTswI08chZqXiLVqs8XClycRM82eVQNVzRV5 5i77hdAfFDK1HG4atJU4DxddnX4edS0S0wLvK731LjXHBzYtNyCRhZjqeWTxBqL9rmUQ XyVOj6pL+ZB23ylfL8KjTOxHcSVllXnLCFaJkHyip+RqBVAmBOfCyf+Sq6qXNzSUFX2D 5jqShFbJpg1IcSnRZKTDSa7Q927szZwJdHpDp1d67VKOVP8XjaP2nAn6Rkfg99Es6ek+ qEBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fun3JxaLgX9de75clbS3F7EOBP36co0NiUdhl+48CuxwM999eV sLrK5ParG6ennSQcu/wMI0egpKTBMXk5HmNxViE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350b5RZNvOXFWWY77IRV5xLycI2vz+mvlmqHQFWFywKtnctV+GwoR5tnJcls8O3yw2mMzuUZ0PCWY++N5/CWkgCY= X-Received: by 2002:aca:2404:0:b0:38b:fed6:2771 with SMTP id n4-20020aca2404000000b0038bfed62771mr356723oic.5.1681308863260; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:14:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:14:11 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Stefan Monnier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 3:11=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > >>> +(defun package-core-p (package) > >>> + "Return non-nil the built-in version of PACKAGE is loaded." > >> > >> Didn't you say the "core" terminology was confusing people? > > > > TBH I am not really satisfied with the name (so any other suggestion is > > just as fine for me), and as Joao said it would be better to make the > > predicate as internal so that users are not expected to deal with it. > > Beside "core" and "built-in" (with or without dash), another name that's > been used over the years is "bundled". I don't have a strong preference > between those. Isn't "bundled" better left for when non-core, non-builtin ELPA packages are somehow thrown together with the Emacs release tarball or the platform-specific builds we make of them? Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 10:17:34 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 14:17:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40560 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmbHx-0002VI-Uc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:17:34 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:17674) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmbHw-0002V4-K1 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:17:33 -0400 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5D98A805D6; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:17:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E8FAA80148; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:17:21 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1681309041; bh=L1n5q3EUjTAR1jVSTnGkpcmPkBY2BBdW67TKbdoEeg8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ZzzMlmwQW4Wn1amZvnhw5f/aiZ2JgFH9SCVzXegSDBD9VqU/Lr+/7HET9QHDZC8+m SI7QR6OPKRILk8mLYTbBnKe0D+bqQoT+x7413K8ibp4cR6SubH6aHJCp/qIWKLKU2S YYIQKpU61o60VlOVUc5vrv+AjN2U3diY4fpnom9J4lWjTfvAX2bNphGS8N0VB5U5TP QQ5PiKzK33CjHKKuD98F19O4euElVNf/jdGdLadQyv9/NGVAzhs89Q/gJaYvL57ygB mQefmFn/FzCeI50RMx1Bx08PWhLplsp1hUIiyTo0G22IkUEwjGSK9BBOpxwhnFkIN5 RMpNMzRlRUYJQ== Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.217.176]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5E091202F2; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:17:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vora=22's?= message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:14:11 +0100") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:17:20 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.041 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii 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: -3.3 (---) > Isn't "bundled" better left for when non-core, non-builtin ELPA > packages are somehow thrown together with the Emacs release tarball or > the platform-specific builds we make of them? I can't see any reason why that would make a difference here. AFAICT this only matters in terms of which Git repository/branch holds the source code and how it gets included into the Emacs distribution, but after that it's an "internal detail". Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 10:21:18 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 14:21:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40566 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmbLa-0002bH-H8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:21:18 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f53.google.com ([209.85.160.53]:47041) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmbLW-0002b1-Gi for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:21:16 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1842e8a8825so13885827fac.13 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:21:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681309268; x=1683901268; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=PBI0rZa5Ow1yBSkStF1Nx+X4fNeCTYARBZAlySU1vrM=; b=MsbytClaFZ8fYkxmLSQ4gg4VVRYeTWv3AOU986O/p3km3q/JyuruSwfv2LhbdGtS4p dqKd3hn/6DGrumac6fwaTA83JSWbmRzcINxdvD9HU5ZpEGCFQEB0mvJHssvaUTl3y/p/ 5BKNmXA2gyncrN6OrHRSfXgN+Q3I8wBxayg9xjtKJ/MRAXFcKjSw+GB4mo5a+9E++1Vs Ldp+Yn6TXVuyVWdNMCv2XPSZUBI6+05r9OBof1cn/R8BH+JUmUQjcZxGWKq3vTYesvgt Q4orMYATgpxmXIeLjl83xLqtwfhNyvTECJezd9Unj6Hc9LbXrrYy7HagJQxl0cAv+Z0y Zb6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681309268; x=1683901268; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PBI0rZa5Ow1yBSkStF1Nx+X4fNeCTYARBZAlySU1vrM=; b=Ltzf4PJ8nmMmdn7pUlGpqfI8ZgxdV2bR9ulE3rR5lldDuC05lx2VOfcoZe/dNL2M3c C4ID1Z52EALXlhIRKHaBdAUvja3SFE8Or7wGGWeZK8b0FZZVItCjgcLDb/iyOc/VFTLT tUkVYVcTAkv6MmGtHZcCGIdsMwWFlWpts1lYCihZWH9qPD8WbXvWYjhA6kYPbWBnhSS3 HWDZD2lbji5P0DhYN6W+JwAxzF82qHhf8vhs/91mp+wrl2BaDIsva5vuRGaUsaCCezw+ ewBHkRHJ7LgjApzjsE/AtEjQTvcKOpjBc9ad8trSMZZBc4KT77mz/SrmxPVR8J2BaS5C NkyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dSMTEp1w2BLKgrP5utVXQGYV0RbF0AtzsSrYdMYd+hWvrYy+o/ h+H+e6XcTPlZAUXKeMqx7FXJkrZJYOYHHzDrCrw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aLfk1I83ZkhFhYmmc1ge2lyBPMFtmlCaBnb01eLlAaLzirpoyu28cc+JN27I++VZDc8ljiqs2i1oIGqwEZOTo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:e892:b0:180:1f9f:923e with SMTP id q18-20020a056870e89200b001801f9f923emr3133935oan.5.1681309268593; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:21:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:20:57 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Stefan Monnier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 3:17=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > Isn't "bundled" better left for when non-core, non-builtin ELPA > > packages are somehow thrown together with the Emacs release tarball or > > the platform-specific builds we make of them? > > I can't see any reason why that would make a difference here. > > AFAICT this only matters in terms of which Git repository/branch holds > the source code and how it gets included into the Emacs distribution, > but after that it's an "internal detail". Fair enough, and lets hope updating them will be easy. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 11:18:01 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 15:18:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40627 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcES-0004Q1-R2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:18:01 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55078) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcEP-0004Pg-V4 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:17:59 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcEI-0001vS-Rq; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:17:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=ciJStzjh4t4XUgv+jshcr74BNpflzzqWyEcLB9sqwd8=; b=jY7RVhgU+gtZ 2WlZIFMOOGqusSKJdEEiLRgHSyZr7RrYzay0V7W9DuJBRIF7RAjuAV+4FGyL3ObqhPR37sHAbR62j khHWCp5GGElegfrZes6/FGA9HaIwbYI1kJ+m8eTz/z5d1ihXa3B0hFvnf+lRviyaXiGmchjckETRR MncegFB3XDjI/wEf4XNvyUKTLB1DC59c5957vbVaP5YXlW3VwywmlrxhOEN6zBGyaEgCYB6/DZp7W iw+8/So5v0W/u/hLiCAFRDO25X1fZz8Jx2inZuArJfD/8GWkGAPDRXPqmc6s2tca7ELaVHrNgVCUc KYZHvv3ptyKI1lYowhwnVA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcEI-0001cE-0b; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:17:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:18:33 +0300 Message-Id: <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:42:56 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:42:56 +0000 > > >> After thinking about this for a bit, I think that the right approach is > >> to use package-install instead of writing a separate command. After > >> all, this will make the behaviour of package-install consistent with > >> that of the package menu. > > > > Is this for master or for the release branch? > > Personally I am indifferent, it should be compatible with both If we want to install this on the release branch, the changes must be very safe, which in this case basically means "do not touch any code used when updating non-core packages". If the patch you presented is all there is to it, then I'm afraid it doesn't satisfy the above condition, because it does affect the use case of updating an ELPA package that is not in core. So I cannot agree to installing this on emacs-29 in the form you posted, sorry. > > And I thought we all agreed built-in packages need special treatment > > anyway, didn't we? Then why having a separate command is not a > > natural next step? > > I don't necessarily agree that "special treatment" requires a separate > command. Even if you don't agree with that in general, having a separate command would allow us to install that command on emacs-29 without any fears. So that alone is a significant advantage, even if the rest are not yet agreed upon. > I think it is wrong the assume that an built-in package should > automatically be updated to a ELPA package whenever possible. This seems to be an argument in favor of a separate command? Or what did you mean by that, and how is it related to the issue at hand? > >> It might work but it should be tested somewhat thoroughly before the > >> patch is applied. In the meantime, I just finished a similar approach > >> that does not modify `package-installed-p', but just adds another > >> utility function: > > > > A new utility function is fine by me, even if this is e branch. But I > > don't quite understand how this is supposed to work in package-install > > to allow updating built-in packages, and do that in a way that will > > not touch the existing code for non-built-in packages in significant > > ways (assuming you propose this from the release branch). Can you > > elaborate on that? > > The only reason we couldn't install built-in packages is that when > planning to install packages `package-compute-transaction' believes that > if a built-in package is provided, then everything is fine and we don't > need to proceed with installing any packages. All I propose is to lift > this assumption, then this works fine. My problem is _how_ to lift this assumption. The way you propose doing that affects updating non-core packages in ways that we will not have enough time to test well enough, not compared to the year that these commands exist in package.el and were used by many people in many cases. So we have the following alternatives for the way forward: . install your changes on master only, and leave the problem of updating a core package unsolved in Emacs 29 (with the workaround mentioned in the beginning of this bug's discussion available to alleviate the problem to some extent) . come up with safer changes for package-install that could be installed on emacs-29 . add a new command for updating a core package, which can then be safely installed on emacs-29 The last 2 alternatives can be for emacs-29 only, whereas on master we install your proposed change (or something else). For the 2nd alternative above to be acceptable, the added/modified code must be completely separate from the code we have now, so that any possibility of its destabilizing the current code could be eliminated. It could be a separate code, triggered by the prefix argument, for example. > One point that might be deliberated is that this means all built-in > dependencies are also installed, even if these are not strictly > necessary. It shouldn't matter that much, since most users would > upgrade them eventually, but worth mentioning I guess? That just confirms my fears that we are opening a Pandora's box. We have no idea what this will do, and no time to test the results. Unintended consequences are abundant. We must draw any such consequences to the absolute minimum, at least the way the commands work by default. Even if the result is less than elegant. > >> +(defun package-core-p (package) > >> + "Return non-nil the built-in version of PACKAGE is loaded." > > > > Didn't you say the "core" terminology was confusing people? > > TBH I am not really satisfied with the name (so any other suggestion is > just as fine for me), and as Joao said it would be better to make the > predicate as internal so that users are not expected to deal with it. The name should still be self-explanatory enough, because we the Emacs maintainers will read this code and should be able to understand what the function does without reading is source every time. > > >> + (let ((package (if (package-desc-p package) > >> + (package-desc-name package) > >> + package))) > >> + (and (assq package (package--alist)) > >> + (package-built-in-p package)))) > > > > It sounds like this doesn't check whether a package is "core", it > > checks whether it's built-in and can be updated? So maybe the name > > should be changed to reflect that? And the doc string as well (what > > it means by "is loaded")? > > Right the "loaded" doesn't make sense. How about this: > > +(defun package--upgradable-built-in-p (package) > + "Check if a built-in PACKAGE can be upgraded. > +This command differs from `package-built-in-p' in that it only > +returns a non-nil value if the user has not installed a more > +recent version of the package from a package archive." Note that what the doc string says is not what the name tells us. "Upgradeable" and "user has not installed a more recent version" are not the same. What the doc string says calls for a name like package--built-in-and-up-to-date or something. > + (and (not (assq (cond > + ((package-desc-p package) > + (package-desc-name package)) > + ((stringp package) (intern package)) > + ((symbolp package) package) > + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) > + (package--alist))) > + (package-built-in-p package))) Why do we need all these conditions, where we didn't need them in the current code? Also, package-alist is documented as "alist of all packages available for activation", so it is not clear how the fact that assq returns nil is evidence that "the user has not installed a more recent version". Looking at what package--alist and package-load-all-descriptors do, it looks like they just collect packages that were downloaded into the relevant directories? Is that enough to consider any package not in the list to be "not installed"? And what about the "more recent version" condition -- this doesn't seem to be tested anywhere in package--alist? The above questions and undocumented subtleties is what scares me in installing such changes at this late stage. I'm not sure everyone involved, yourself included, have a clear understanding of what the modified code will do in each possible use case. That is why I very much prefer separate code, which will then free us from the need of considering all these subtleties, as the last year of user's experience with this code can vouch that it does its job correctly, by and large. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 11:38:53 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 15:38:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40919 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcYf-0005CL-3L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:38:53 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:33885) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcYd-0005C5-Ah for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:38:52 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1310058236B; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:38:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:38:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681313926; x=1681317526; bh=qBFv1xIi1lnhXCP/wB/CmtoCnAyRcakgWhX 0qfzOGFo=; b=ZwqZNRKZv/MseuLsTwHNNFnvkGe0p3OJnZy7Wr9sDB1YRfNpQbs nJKFOh78FAlvu9EPGjSGedYwIY1c+V9NhOSdPOdy2oqkqwnFqaIzz94SyNGW6her GCLX9amxM9YWdJUE+a4lKhyOfrVr23FUn9MGi3HHX/TX4RqU7y4ND/dKCEfR2NZ1 yL9J8DJkka2UDieFAXnnQLHLPl+hhMux+R3Iw9+XqTNOo2VPlPBT37WyCY61NdTN w5eH7BFi79PhrdsoqzveBu/Hxfehk2k9IgyeM0o2HLjS51VibcCiMpnoIHXMcLja aX+IOE1qWHsEUoAMFS7h2/xzMiokBr6fvNA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681313926; x=1681317526; bh=qBFv1xIi1lnhXCP/wB/CmtoCnAyRcakgWhX 0qfzOGFo=; b=EGvBWCF+Cs5DwPir2dAzijd4ix9ap2KT0d7VVl1Q0/7NNDVsFZS yUBiyeYaBQYdTNXf7fvdhDoDZw4yBt1rhYuzeZZUfokm9IhLBElVTDUAd5k9quVW ODZoK3PL00iwZhrzfdZkDLPyjZVzeRBzzWh734727FfZv2WhMiudcWMmEaY9ggA9 i/nVRdM1vEikDKdfPruJJtDrHBFBqjCbdE3hDHNM3YBHKXVIAzwdyNedCF6YIKHh NEjIS7GwI2prBLe6i2FnwLwanfngFolwjB1qpdpzkJpxhKfFF+IlmTzVPKO6NETS 3rFPSSlT6AGaJ2tzcEmG0nKCNCMhz5/vXZQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdekiedgledvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0e22d539-9688-54d6-dc41-1490bdea0d15@gutov.dev> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:38:42 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <301ec075-c5f6-092c-b789-175c8cc64e1e@gutov.dev> <877cuhla0f.fsf@gmail.com> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <877cuhla0f.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , eliz@gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen , Stefan Monnier 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: -2.1 (--) On 12/04/2023 12:34, João Távora wrote: > Dmitry Gutov writes: > >> On 11/04/2023 14:02, João Távora wrote: >>> Philip Kaludercic writes: >>> >>>> Will this not affect `package-update-all'? I don't if we want that the >>>> command installs all packages from ELPA that it can find. >>> 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. >> >> On a related note, do you know whether we upgrade the built-in >> packages when the user presses 'U' in the list-packages buffer? >> >> Using the command package-menu-mark-upgrades, that is. > > Nope, doesn't work, doesn't do anything to those packages. I wish it > did, of course. All right, then it's not just about package-install. > I also don't understand why this is using separate, but repeated logic > from package-update. What is the difference between "upgrade" and > "update", if any? Is "upgrade" more powerful? They're supposed to be the same. But that's bug#62750 which you've already read by now. > BTW, I also noticed that Eglot's version on Emacs 29 is garbled. I had > wanted 1.12-emacs29 to somehow show that it is Emacs 29 specific. But > version-to-list doesn't like it and the package shows up as version > "nil" in package--builtins. Will just change it to 1.12.29, which is > less perceptible but works fine (none of this makes any difference to > this bug, of course). Cool. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 11:45:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 15:45:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40970 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcem-0005PF-IE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:45:12 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:50021) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcel-0005Ox-8h for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:45:11 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33590581FC5; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:45:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681314306; x=1681317906; bh=tvnvvzsu1XvWsA46cN2TcXrOMKfAlC5WvN7 zcovev0s=; b=aHhcuCtOv6vehFJkSncqeSn0U5GH3N5n+hyksxCDNsJUmPpGgOr AWo9GDs1px7bXH6NHruAo9g2ioUtsgiZ+Z6Sn9+NaruX/M+seht5lvL+3pZBwago MCCJSG7LUiS5w6148SOG7/CTATivT9SYKUhdo+l+2ePr2YXYApMRj5r3DkXhnhK/ e/9qJhb6RSs/FmdvE8obAAU4HqaQU3wG8s/d1E3SU3r/uAt4UjIlc/KBhvK/jKJI zWQhHODyra1STCbcyp8bJOSO5/S3kILoggoNZlVnlcIiA6U+MLeiU7VaJN1ymhcv uiBLuR5VEz9bXTb28MH0HVhQpP9qTZzOy7A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681314306; x=1681317906; bh=tvnvvzsu1XvWsA46cN2TcXrOMKfAlC5WvN7 zcovev0s=; b=iY3kN4Q5E+z3eTehVEomAATb3Uj/bwUO2zXSyLv74Q2YZ5BfMCx Mvz1vpeTIC4csUCeDoRziGKEXi+HeIw3pz6/flKgDZygI5Sx65xJogHB74FyC1ZM 0nvTbNEet17CcPEmG7wvA+dIlbbiX16fXAauXkDROXj5bUTU4JmH9RUZmy7ZgnsL CwKZ0lq2ucr8flkOGHoWGUP7nx53mqdj9jOcZ57+Hb8+aen/yt6bFj3QrCtJAa+N +i9fffrXLzUbbCghH0jzApLC/h4T2mKAgSWg9LxwrP3SBQqEaxdIxXr3VQ4U+PLW mw6hqQDidcDkbCPUaCyx7eizJnE7RJNbd2A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdekiedgleefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:45:01 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= , Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.1 (--) On 12/04/2023 14:00, João Távora wrote: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > >> the restrictions. What else can I say to express clearly that I would >> like such a command to not be installed? > Had another idea: what about this very tiny patch, then? It makes `M-x > package-install` work for installing a :core package. This also rhymes > exactly with Stefan's intution/feeling that :core packages need to be > "installed" to promote them to installable. The current M-x > package-install recommendation could remain flawlessly and then you can > do whatever you think is best for M-x package-update & friends. > > diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el > index f92afe56b76..134505a96af 100644 > --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el > +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el > @@ -2164,8 +2164,10 @@ package-installed-p > (and pkg-descs > (version-list-<= min-version > (package-desc-version (car pkg-descs))))) > - ;; Also check built-in packages. > - (package-built-in-p package min-version))))) > + ;; Also check built-in packages. But if min-version is nil, just > + ;; act as if a package-desc had been passed (bug#62720) > + (and min-version (package-built-in-p package min-version)))))) > > (defun package-download-transaction (packages) > "Download and install all the packages in PACKAGES. If the package becomes "mass-upgradable" afterwards, this seems like the best solution, behavior-wise (imminent 29 release aside, of course). Does 'M-x package-update/upgrade' get fixed automatically with this, or does it need separate changes? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 11:49:20 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 15:49:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41003 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcim-0005b9-JT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:49:20 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:44565) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcik-0005ar-1q for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:49:18 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E6D58281C; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:49:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:49:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681314552; x=1681318152; bh=gsbHTyy48kmgYn3+FkoeBEygDIBqMSXS8St rB6SvR84=; b=tAslMsaDo5HqsVOLOMtS7PaqWpuI1JGyygLD47DHGF9ybUTHAEm s5Ihu0LhfAilUDePa2I/AEDziFbzXTIG+Bh6oug5YcTqJ4zBW63Q9k0BCB/bZ+qm PsYsNDBSnm9gOL+dwJUim7l9zTJu50HlMgi12fkeXz6XNKFTBSi3hbCnBHFjYPbk 7lQLP7Z68Ju4ovGIj6lkClpsNoMifEFgwfZ9Vx5rIdFmdes6r6/fNqKMaFK/KPvk 672DM/aJ1AX0LYfiX5gtVxnb09egwjSXlQMYNOu/yfCwru3tV6U2kYzE9RkSFO3k JWb23/hdyUO+Sx170A8gZpXrDn7+zJV9AKw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681314552; x=1681318152; bh=gsbHTyy48kmgYn3+FkoeBEygDIBqMSXS8St rB6SvR84=; b=OCF5IreEwwqa75w0jGvt/T9dL1A6GEXRXEMTNA2CMIaD1xQT48s qcbTheodh4te5/C/OBW5lGaNo5/L3V0uFE4kG1EFJ57gcaxruwjo9FNCfkqMNEQl gZiUEFDndF0sxxf7Y8Wd1PJ2W6KbdHRCfNpxSSvFUhu6z7q+XGHMpQB2AkbdaA3C S5PBLwKWEAn5AaHHFclDcrwQ5MCv/KB4SOhtHqlvI/OM/N79IZB37DoXXtx0CzE2 qV+WiBL0GJ2pdUErJGTr5i/gXCB08LH5ltBtcw2jjYlNM8A6E5atUP+afyUTmQjJ zrs8XIW1xYCBaah4sjq9oIelD+cOC9eVTCg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdekiedgleehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:49:09 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii , =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.1 (--) On 12/04/2023 14:08, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: João Távora >> Cc:philipk@posteo.net,monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:04 +0100 >> >> Had another idea: what about this very tiny patch, then? It makes `M-x >> package-install` work for installing a :core package. This also rhymes >> exactly with Stefan's intution/feeling that :core packages need to be >> "installed" to promote them to installable. The current M-x >> package-install recommendation could remain flawlessly and then you can >> do whatever you think is best for M-x package-update & friends. > This has the same problem: it modifies a function that is called in > too many places. package-installed-p has half a dozen callers in > package.el alone. The change is tiny, but what about its > implications on every use case where it is involved? What if we only fix 'package-upgrade' (nee package-update) in emacs-29? It's a new function, after all. And semantically, the result would be somewhat sensible: since 'eglot' is already installed ("bundled" or whatever), having 'package-install' fail is not that big a deal, as long as 'M-x package-upgrade' works. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 11:58:45 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 15:58:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41079 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcrt-00060X-Gj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:58:45 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33016) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcrs-00060F-0h for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:58:44 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcrk-00078Q-GG; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:58:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=XAXRUA6AHbSrwTM9xNh6HW+vwsIhlziCOx1E+XfgRF8=; b=CcJfXKN9nlW8++svVvua gCOs821PsaEujUui0o4fpoIG4dNAdSs2m/6Gg9Fx0xMr9a6+JrynuBtWuakk0O6sqGm2YmMuzUOfg XE3QFYsihmOzYCayE+9Y8kbB5bqh1np3YtN4JLE8hq2G51h6uv4rizUGqI8wXR9hG2jVM6yTfXmvg N+vbhU/XIkXtGzSmWry9SRtoAbgxhcSZOSfefLf7OuBvtKplQxzrlBClhPEhh+YlQ1tNjYLcnTWCj YVxYuH/JwHN8L1qYqTxYreEzGnNtAcs0vco43T7cf6Ke2r1OYaZma0M0/G3tg8FcNVfOZ8Eynd7Sv 5aAPoSHo+QVNAw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmcrj-0000Zm-Hq; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:58:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:59:19 +0300 Message-Id: <834jpl6qi0.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:49:09 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:49:09 +0300 > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 12/04/2023 14:08, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> From: João Távora > >> Cc:philipk@posteo.net,monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > >> larsi@gnus.org > >> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:04 +0100 > >> > >> Had another idea: what about this very tiny patch, then? It makes `M-x > >> package-install` work for installing a :core package. This also rhymes > >> exactly with Stefan's intution/feeling that :core packages need to be > >> "installed" to promote them to installable. The current M-x > >> package-install recommendation could remain flawlessly and then you can > >> do whatever you think is best for M-x package-update & friends. > > This has the same problem: it modifies a function that is called in > > too many places. package-installed-p has half a dozen callers in > > package.el alone. The change is tiny, but what about its > > implications on every use case where it is involved? > > What if we only fix 'package-upgrade' (nee package-update) in emacs-29? I believe that's what João was proposing. I don't mind, but changes in package-update will also need to be safe enough, since this command, while new in Emacs 29, is with us for the last year, so is relatively well tested, and I don't want to risk breaking it by last-minute changes of a non-trivial nature. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 12:13:47 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 16:13:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41536 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmd6Q-0000W4-Ln for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:13:47 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f179.google.com ([209.85.167.179]:47029) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmd6O-0000Vr-7Q for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:13:44 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f179.google.com with SMTP id w19so8048852oiv.13 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:13:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681316018; x=1683908018; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=s2CDv+sXU/j+I7ISvwyZ+ZlpmUQeJYbiGscJSiYE2Cg=; b=YvBHip/Y6n2pBt8NuAcwZvYn6UEOKFr7NzTPP4l3OCKKZPDoTmxnDVWYTnaodtZdmu cJAWg38Xmz6/nqAxvEW2nU2mZVW2NVvNOruq27Buh3DMFxZ9BJ9xfjLEvSQPfPv5HU2y R+ckp5A52DCsmj0VK8gr7qD7BLQGI9Ff777zkL8PLfbeMvcSJQfxL2h4PKeoqffUrjgg C2zAer2JXlVVJLXfW/Vm+J3DMDhOM4OTBT8QaFz7eSXdBr5qGRD45X3RTfweiwYRhd74 Koy/eAZtzVjpMg9qyfcMqbSIyhv7dZl0qZDFLTeg08I9ognFJzo76lE7+wmt2I1H2kj4 2oHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681316018; x=1683908018; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=s2CDv+sXU/j+I7ISvwyZ+ZlpmUQeJYbiGscJSiYE2Cg=; b=5ykFm+Fi6NkmE+H6km0iZC5dKvdV9efD1aE3YguHEXpbX0uzmQ2DJfOZN9xAqj8orA 7GLafZjIDhW6raO+QiszEsN5Ohv6DqLOm7DdvgcO/e7c496wpty//6xYgJFBvjmT1CYE YzN8Ds3CNXRH/6Gx2JIq7+ZXfWGeLJ/vX4zqAoQ/3vkaCk8x98bimAncPN/qqsdQvogt d3FQiRS+BU9yRjtCnP7M/XGWL9hj7gziepv12VsSLqGupUYFa7/mYmQC0YvLm4Io6Wnp gC+C8Ssg8N8Hf5fAA8GHOl3ETXsL/oHX1T2l1I5xdz8igzRgHnyOXHDG6MbdQJJZRmlm PdLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9d18dE83oL11vmVHQeZROXxpMOGnMXt3En2MPQGmBg0xefWjyqq SDYccGhREt7yTUi1bLx3b/gWrMkuj2ev4ayEkMY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350b6RCXn2K8dRC/PdNNCJtOH5tbOjjKhplkwkwAmw0BnJdAYGCB/YoEcjKB+rYRr2rmoBGZ3cM9IhaQkf7jU8VU= X-Received: by 2002:aca:ea83:0:b0:384:1cf9:912e with SMTP id i125-20020acaea83000000b003841cf9912emr781183oih.5.1681316018338; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:13:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:13:27 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:17=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > The above questions and undocumented subtleties is what scares me in > installing such changes at this late stage. I'm not sure everyone > involved, yourself included, have a clear understanding of what the > modified code will do in each possible use case. That is why I very > much prefer separate code, which will then free us from the need of > considering all these subtleties, as the last year of user's > experience with this code can vouch that it does its job correctly, by > and large. Alright, I've tried my hand at making this clean separation, so that no logic of transaction or existing predicates is touched. I tried to make it as intelligible as possible perhaps overdoing the commentary and the naming, but we can always trim it. diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index 685f983e285..51d633131d9 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -2178,6 +2178,24 @@ package--archives-initialize (unless package-archive-contents (package-refresh-contents))) +(defun package--vestal-builtins-available-for-installation () + "Return built-in packages that can but have never been updated. +The return value is a subset of `package-archive-contents', i.e. +a list ((SYM PACKAGE-DESC) ...) where SYM names such a built-in +package. For bug#62720. + +Because we reject packages that are in `package--alist', this set +is guaranteed to _not_ intersect with the subset of +`package-archive-contents', which verifies `package-installed-p'. +which, for historical reasons (and in suspicious conditions) says +that built-in packages as installed." + (let (res) + (dolist (bi package--builtins) + (when-let ((probe (and (not (assq (car bi) (package--alist))) + (assq (car bi) package-archive-contents)))) + (push probe res))) + res)) + ;;;###autoload (defun package-install (pkg &optional dont-select) "Install the package PKG. @@ -2196,19 +2214,27 @@ package-install to install it but still mark it as selected." (interactive (progn - ;; Initialize the package system to get the list of package - ;; symbols for completion. (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)= ) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (append + (delq nil + (mapcar (lambda (elt) + (unless (package-installed-p (car elt= )) + (symbol-name (car elt)))) + package-archive-contents)) + (mapcar #'car + (package--vestal-builtins-available-for-installation))) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) + ;; See docstring and code of + ;; `package--vestal-builtins-available-for-installation' to + ;; understand how this code can only kick in if indeed the user + ;; selected a such a package from the completion list. bug#62720. + (when-let ((name-and-desc + (assq pkg (package--vestal-builtins-available-for-installation)))) + (setq pkg (cadr name-and-desc))) (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'package-menu--post-refresh) (let ((name (if (package-desc-p pkg) (package-desc-name pkg) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 12:17:08 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 16:17:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41553 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmd9f-0000di-U1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:17:08 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:46834) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmd9Z-0000cT-5c for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:17:05 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1842e8a8825so14306411fac.13 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:17:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681316215; x=1683908215; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=AGUO2YYKNbnvqKOoyhuU4zO2sMIl0UE2W8BjHe7spXQ=; b=cIethLnQXhjnaIx4AOCU4BJt8/S8g+IjSJ4bHJszLzjtbrx5nZNFRwodWPIpT835jS X6EcwOa+S51vIVDtVFjXEI1NBg8H5V1oAHA79mfkOLoKfFK1bvmA1BllCRGfzRuqBiax vowMEwJzWqJ8tXFdx8vK9FdF4Rl82HZCYKZnEJUj6HHFa/wcUcXc03mSYhWpV/tZh2qt ikrZS8wMgClSFxrf5Q3oEOtCrCPoZlMnUUI/iZOeh/21yWg7mUZllDyZStm7+x2jd6cz bZUabxZK8mk/xw4lgLDBCr3BsoRrs237/gqGXTdZA13fOycntZ6Wja2iPHEDciSN++IM 0vxw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681316215; x=1683908215; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=AGUO2YYKNbnvqKOoyhuU4zO2sMIl0UE2W8BjHe7spXQ=; b=UD8oshsVrtwwoxa9X9ZZcOz5/Jx8U9hnTbZAee/fzClfYt2zNJrN9bNMJhevyZFui8 qPvbgPB6EzWYTY3vlNd//7j/oUYxi7k8d9Tzv9kUgXVEG5BTyJVidFGYuWbjdNWaK0wd aUFdZ+vOb8eMRSYU3MwfI2yiGj0EpJKANbaVLPUfSpp43gH/+GRY1B4rAJzlIR2laa+F Kz+ZCaJHaaUsfgA/fGrIXCR3mynIrXTEcW/Zwg4z4gDeBDNu4G9teJuo+LHS5V7/FTUZ 8n4Y63WdCNBGM3OdToBBwMZ8BU4u4yenoBUv9eAt1sYkz8ByQsDzLA0eE4yoQz2sHjwY sOjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9clZD2OGg+AjEQUpOgpcM9eQuQa/lcpfWfP2B2z0EJt9/MELL1R TXT9pOaJblT5UeuO+2UFUNsLwukVjgmXo8JLcTg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bSab8Eb1oXd0A2+A1IVQ7vMINkK/gl0dUv3k3d5S0AuQoAPAcU7sQ6rDeKRq21Wgbc3sVAepNClXcb+agUnpk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:9122:b0:187:7af4:4d08 with SMTP id o34-20020a056870912200b001877af44d08mr751421oae.5.1681316215615; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:16:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:16:44 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 5:13=E2=80=AFPM Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora wrote: > > modified code will do in each possible use case. That is why I very > > much prefer separate code, which will then free us from the need of > Alright, I've tried my hand at making this clean separation, so that > no logic of transaction or existing predicates is touched. I tried to > (defun package-install (pkg &optional dont-select) > "Install the package PKG. > @@ -2196,19 +2214,27 @@ package-install > to install it but still mark it as selected." > (interactive > (progn > - ;; Initialize the package system to get the list of package > - ;; symbols for completion. Didn't mean to take out this comment, sorry, was an oversight. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 12:29:56 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 16:29:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41581 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmdM3-0000yg-Md for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:29:55 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f53.google.com ([209.85.160.53]:46744) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmdM2-0000yR-AN for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:29:54 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1842e8a8825so14349159fac.13 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:29:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681316988; x=1683908988; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=XUDLoiLczHUd3MoF+s7SaqCh23S/U2uysDyue+jTl/Q=; b=Y+z+M0S75MEt9mIOPWN/VyLrADLfo9eDzz3GHVFp1zCS1BuG+x88oWRo03Zk5z/APt 7pHwvd5g8wIQfpVPdn2lDaTg9NXxEbD1YBgEh09y/1jw05qQL9TBp3z0ot59UY2nQbxO Z95ISD45EC+qq4wz1cpa+hawbMONeClheKaBtmCuGF/IuURisqMXfkyt/ID0lD0PgJNn U8jZcBEXsfhAjXhKkVf2gevfSWgJrkRwAmFIpO9JkS6cOfa9Av+9ClxUy3Gr7oFW/PJV P4qGNvaNSGWdBdZkWIpaYLbqRBXYSxC9Ff4nIot1SuWXz5e/JlyfgMUZCxY4opH9IIlC lF+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681316988; x=1683908988; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XUDLoiLczHUd3MoF+s7SaqCh23S/U2uysDyue+jTl/Q=; b=UmkBd2qgfOOYbPi4w65s2T2hABYAftFJ5sF/UJjdV0HtQn4LNKBl3sQSpMI/qvmqYU KkXxB84kDJThQfCGT98sON+gW7iUeWMWVzQYh+OsfinAVRcia6JV+q+W4UGgyLyan4HG SOeG8ND6pAMJH9DKcvHkEsXs5g1K+dAN/UFdq9dRWcU7Vpoxgz3QHeJkXajtl2RWbpFg cD61rtlBrpSrSYLfJ4EvaMnWe6wfAGqU2fDpptiX3M0nNd+J9G+rso8zLGC59p4jVV2H udhPNND4zdHL2rpEX65rzH2ungalpS25z/7C6LS7FIebuUJmjy45TYJoGBsXhiBt/Xdz lb8A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fTvB2l9SruF5OHIHXgvPWA1RIoCS31FSOXI+8QM111W5xfzYGt sqZMqchvduif9H3mLw3gatUa7luOqDkzoDev4As= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Yxiz/se7Rs+aTUECUZ6vediD8K9hTMkjOyahRk86CPa9/+SBN5NxMVe56LKJ+AYWKJSKZd96g+gtsUxNz5Vs0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:524b:b0:186:d9e3:e279 with SMTP id o11-20020a056870524b00b00186d9e3e279mr1051447oai.5.1681316988550; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:29:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <834jpl6qi0.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <834jpl6qi0.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:29:37 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, Dmitry Gutov , larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:58=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> Had another idea: what about this very tiny patch, then? It makes `= M-x > > >> package-install` work for installing a :core package. This also rhy= mes > > >> exactly with Stefan's intution/feeling that :core packages need to b= e > > >> "installed" to promote them to installable. The current M-x > > >> package-install recommendation could remain flawlessly and then you = can > > >> do whatever you think is best for M-x package-update & friends. > > > This has the same problem: it modifies a function that is called in > > > too many places. package-installed-p has half a dozen callers in > > > package.el alone. The change is tiny, but what about its > > > implications on every use case where it is involved? > > > > What if we only fix 'package-upgrade' (nee package-update) in emacs-29? > > I believe that's what Jo=C3=A3o was proposing. AFAICT, Dmitry was asking only for package-update, not package-update-all. Stefan was also inclined for that. In my changes, I changed both. But it is not hard for me to touch only package-update and to do it with the utmost care for separation and stability. For the moment, I'm focusing on M-x package-install, like Philip is. There seems to be more consensus there that it should offer to update builtin packages that have never been updated. I do believe there is high demand for a "upgrade/update" mechanism that just "updates whatever there is to update, don't care if core or whatnot" and people looking at package-update-all and package-menu--mark-upgrades (the "U" command Dmitry brought up) will eventually be disappointed. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 12:52:28 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 16:52:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41636 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmdhs-0001jV-9i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:52:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33968) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmdhp-0001jG-RS for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:52:27 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmdhi-0002S4-0V; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:52:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=3nqOWRmRfP3rQxn0UYq+ngE09Z6xjFbH5lLlxNQqBmY=; b=N1lPkL5LO+ocKALMx1sv Rb3C7T53eJXnshxb+FjLubk+Ptsroq5CU6s/SCVqgjB69udXTiuJGRj0vHzFwebS0YSlWltEYgX3R QZFEkGqCQfYjGJ85pCIswZvM6rMjRiw9GIVngySo6LRzTHaYPh2gJouc23/mwbxJnZSGBE9lR3FtQ ADJGxnylf6I/dfZ2r3J/zZ2qRrE7gqRilkJqptMab85yFuI/YKaGnbDLsqJiJ70aZKuNTFXxtbtV5 yA/nyIoHNpduD4yVjRNy/CY6EJ9+yoNUyqZBCArcNc9GYguO5EsJapobzlNq3TcFzuTuYtFyIiNAA K2BVZ7xX/J1JFA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmdhh-0008QU-Al; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:52:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:53:01 +0300 Message-Id: <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:13:27 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:13:27 +0100 > Cc: Philip Kaludercic , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:17 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > The above questions and undocumented subtleties is what scares me in > > installing such changes at this late stage. I'm not sure everyone > > involved, yourself included, have a clear understanding of what the > > modified code will do in each possible use case. That is why I very > > much prefer separate code, which will then free us from the need of > > considering all these subtleties, as the last year of user's > > experience with this code can vouch that it does its job correctly, by > > and large. > > Alright, I've tried my hand at making this clean separation, so that > no logic of transaction or existing predicates is touched. I tried to > make it as intelligible as possible perhaps overdoing the commentary > and the naming, but we can always trim it. Thanks, but this is not separate code. It adds 21 built-in packages to the list of completion candidates that the user can choose in package-install, and who knows what kind of confusion this could cause when users see packages like Xref and Package and Tramp and seq and Python and Org in that list, and what accidents that could cause if users select one of those by mistake, because they never saw them there before? PLEASE show me a completely separate code or a separate command, then I will agree to this last-minute addition. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 12:54:00 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 16:54:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41645 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmdjM-0001mJ-4w for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:54:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34012) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmdjJ-0001m4-1Y for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:53:59 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmdjD-0002mU-Pa; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:53:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=njV7KrJ7t77xDPUZqE2kMNrfVbJj6htwTvSFtP/kyUw=; b=mu2QDxnA9zApPjfIM+/k HHkio1Hxe5C5ZLDHT5W6KL48jKgZ6AhrKpumKF730650g9w3sWDvJApCrXE7HgeLuCw7HZ5gxxxKu Wrtw4MsbBeksCus/m4Ine5hx+QF/c0RHERF+h2DTC9VztfixW+/456GoFLzdiJqSS7NiiDVJXs2le ueL7zn9nNWBSLf0juN9UbXGcSOViI+SG6ZVOfKaBV5onSjiZPMQsi/hhFGBb4BeIGh5doz4AP3+L7 Cz9+BjPpLnxtmy1BdhahsYeh+NyqsysogNX0Zs1mEuACcVmoQ01RK9mRR77+dirorNRgELPbhnP3A pZkgotCQb4lqdA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmdjD-0000AJ-7b; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:53:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:54:37 +0300 Message-Id: <83zg7d59de.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87a5zdtexw.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:20:27 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <83zg7e8d2d.fsf@gnu.org> <83o7nt8x8a.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz49lar3.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h77f7.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5zdtexw.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: João Távora , > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:20:27 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: João Távora > >> Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, > >> 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > >> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:18:08 +0100 > >> > >> Eli Zaretskii writes: > >> > >> >> Btw, why, when I do "M-x list-packages RET", I see Eglot in red with > >> >> Status "incompat"? If I press RET on its name, I see > >> >> > >> >> Package eglot is incompatible. > >> >> > >> >> Status: Incompatible because it depends on uninstallable packages. > >> >> > >> >> Why is that? > >> >> > >> >> No idea. Is this with our without my patch? > >> > > >> > Without. > >> > >> I can't reproduce this in a recent emacs-29. Here's what I start Emacs > >> with > >> > >> HOME=`mktemp -d` && src/emacs -Q -f list-packages > >> > >> I get: > >> > >> Status: Available from gnu -- [Install] > > > > I did just > > > > emacs -Q > > M-x list-packages RET > > > > and I still see what I described. > > > > I get the same if I point HOME to a scratch empty directory. > > > > Maybe it's a Windows thing? why are some dependencies marked as "not > > available"? > > > > Package eglot is incompatible. > > > > Status: Incompatible because it depends on uninstallable packages. > > Archive: gnu > > Version: 1.14 > > Commit: 8125d4cfc5605ead9102b7d823c4241029eb76cc > > Summary: The Emacs Client for LSP servers > > Requires: emacs-26.3, jsonrpc-1.0.16, flymake-1.2.1, > > project-0.9.8 (not available), xref-1.6.2 (not available), > > eldoc-1.14.0, seq-2.23 (not available), > > external-completion-0.1 (not available) > > On GNU/Linux: I have experienced a similar issue to this one in the > past, but found that it resolved itself without any action on my end > after a while. Sadly I did not take the time to investigate what is > going on, but I believe that this is a subtle bug in package.el. I've now tried on GNU/Linux (one of gnu.org machines), and I see the same there: eglot, project, and use-package are marked as "incompat". From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 13:14:49 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 17:14:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41690 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pme3U-0002Pk-EG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:14:48 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f44.google.com ([209.85.160.44]:35628) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pme3S-0002PU-Ab for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:14:47 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f44.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-183f4efa98aso20640298fac.2 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681319680; x=1683911680; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=x+iujBtDovisilqelo/eOzIR35dy8o3BQ0VLAQ2k6+E=; b=E3c+fWRyAwQS1D5aDQQz2/2diHmRsWYtDMCGWELZ4LKMxIxjgmOXcMjRqIPWvpNCZp LDQl2kUFQuTISyBBo0IDop1/dhcke1N6mGZY5O9L2AKkYxFFyJLayHEscmCfMPtz6Fpf jGgrdDiMHhuomBdDSW3WaNEPc/Q0Rr266KOkcMEe8DChjqA3p6cS/LEbtiTf3xbZve61 hKK8sUre0W4BrednMtL0kEmZOwDyLtVFWJSFTw0C6ZPh1qD1xgKKED1ZCJwXELcQMBn2 iLaJKWrsuQJxI0DuHKSXAP024oJOpv0tSI8fyOg5YeIEIqpaLA1GGz6wwOLezqHD0iX4 KA4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681319680; x=1683911680; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=x+iujBtDovisilqelo/eOzIR35dy8o3BQ0VLAQ2k6+E=; b=Qc9z23BzVxzk45CNbP7Nc+cbiapS5i9gca0Jfkwx0G+trCMc3uh71fhaqoMRaFZuYK r54FYlwgBs6WFSWfyOlJHyjKKGDUSVLi0hqHGHv/olK77C/S0xzAxVWmRyNRg98qSzOi 0Sqk1o5fXsEW+EleeJBvNufvCq0NxfWfI9h5RPPaHkojoAn2h6ndjMdMQ//fBEfeuLgq FSU2ews0LpnEJLt7l78xleFiWrcKSreI/Gwg90BgVqsxmsgSWg9sMFlR5sHyF9BZAqXi HG+EKD5fkkxaq62NRH8zyxQ3D0RnEhVJUXMNjtLedX0/QzjcwyaKJRHJKk8jEhtUxmR+ 69rw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fdmdISg6MeQPIugedTfEbOHoUyh0t4TGp8H+cn71G0vRxuUl3C pl/RyT8/rWvpT3kPlPtv21qd9j8d+tuXVGnABuM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ap4bqV+TQu8fifue0wqiN8XGd7FHoIMbu4x8icBGJepOq921qI2TOPGVLAVY/QVJBUe/60GIt1kEAXocVFTk8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:d608:b0:17d:7221:d80c with SMTP id a8-20020a056870d60800b0017d7221d80cmr7053881oaq.5.1681319680623; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:14:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:14:28 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000514aa805f926be4b" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier 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 (-) --000000000000514aa805f926be4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 12, 2023, 17:52 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:13:27 +0100 > > Cc: Philip Kaludercic , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > > larsi@gnus.org > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:17=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wr= ote: > > > > > The above questions and undocumented subtleties is what scares me in > > > installing such changes at this late stage. I'm not sure everyone > > > involved, yourself included, have a clear understanding of what the > > > modified code will do in each possible use case. That is why I very > > > much prefer separate code, which will then free us from the need of > > > considering all these subtleties, as the last year of user's > > > experience with this code can vouch that it does its job correctly, b= y > > > and large. > > > > Alright, I've tried my hand at making this clean separation, so that > > no logic of transaction or existing predicates is touched. I tried to > > make it as intelligible as possible perhaps overdoing the commentary > > and the naming, but we can always trim it. > > Thanks, but this is not separate code. It adds 21 built-in packages > to the list of completion candidates that the user can choose in > package-install, and who knows what kind of confusion this could cause > when users see packages like Xref and Package and Tramp and seq and > Python and Org in that list, and what accidents that could cause if > users select one of those by mistake, because they never saw them > there before? > The intended behavior, of course. To install a newer version of the package, of course. This is also what Philip's patch did, only with different code. PLEASE show me a completely separate code or a separate command, then > I will agree to this last-minute addition. > The point is to change the broken behavior of the existing command, package-install. Anything else is a waste of time, and noone except you has demonstrated support for this separate command idea. Please, in normal non-shouting case, explain to me how you think that the behavior of an existing command can be changed with "completely separate code". Jo=C3=A3o > --000000000000514aa805f926be4b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023, 17:52 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora <joaotavora@gmail.com>= ;
> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:13:27 +0100
> Cc: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>, monnier@ir= o.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0larsi@gnus.org
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:17=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org&g= t; wrote:
>
> > The above questions and undocumented subtleties is what scares me= in
> > installing such changes at this late stage.=C2=A0 I'm not sur= e everyone
> > involved, yourself included, have a clear understanding of what t= he
> > modified code will do in each possible use case.=C2=A0 That is wh= y I very
> > much prefer separate code, which will then free us from the need = of
> > considering all these subtleties, as the last year of user's<= br> > > experience with this code can vouch that it does its job correctl= y, by
> > and large.
>
> Alright, I've tried my hand at making this clean separation, so th= at
> no logic of transaction or existing predicates is touched.=C2=A0 I tri= ed to
> make it as intelligible as possible perhaps overdoing the commentary > and the naming, but we can always trim it.

Thanks, but this is not separate code.=C2=A0 It adds 21 built-in packages to the list of completion candidates that the user can choose in
package-install, and who knows what kind of confusion this could cause
when users see packages like Xref and Package and Tramp and seq and
Python and Org in that list, and what accidents that could cause if
users select one of those by mistake, because they never saw them
there before?

The intended behavior, of course. To install a newer version o= f the package, of course. This is also what Philip's patch did, only wi= th different code.

PLEASE show me a completely separate code or a separate command, then
I will agree to this last-minute addition.

The point is to change the broken= behavior of the existing command, package-install. Anything else is a wast= e of time, and noone except you has demonstrated support for this separate = command idea. Please, in normal non-shouting case, explain to me how you th= ink that the behavior of an existing command can be changed with "comp= letely separate code".=C2=A0

Jo=C3=A3o
--000000000000514aa805f926be4b-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 13:22:25 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 17:22:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41713 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmeAq-0002dH-Hf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:22:24 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50320) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmeAo-0002d1-6p for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:22:23 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmeAh-0000sj-GF; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:22:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=y44aqmBrOolTbACVZ8IYV8CvFND91ci7pfEIydJcTdc=; b=XgwGTnr2a+xLlxLTPnrm kWeQARrf4Wrh0BRfGEerc8Jjl1WxQIDptbAIIm47G87cACzxRq3S/T/j6HPCx3CpzzPiDrSO57aeX WB2kYduJPLf0uOcBZ/cgWgd+eh/a8dvnkodGj2dh27ycrhanzz/YdEEQXsiP4RYdxboTveV6qLbMA wC6qRtJ9y7BZpB++89kw+eUt8g5qhw87eFpHj4d2WOXjyag/U1H0n29cbu5rei6UDHFFgfnPNIGwL +waCEdQPWDBjVnomQY8f+ujk3peBzbW8l729MAB02B1JfYxT02ndM4OaGKg+Wn83ZQKjShRL0nua8 LoJj3KHCgGedtA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmeAg-0008MV-Mo; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:22:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:22:58 +0300 Message-Id: <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:14:28 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:14:28 +0100 > Cc: "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > Lars Ingebrigtsen > > Please, in normal non-shouting case, explain to me how you think that the behavior of an existing > command can be changed with "completely separate code". I already did: either (1) add a prefix argument to an existing command, which will then trigger the new behavior, or (2) add a separate command. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 13:41:59 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 17:41:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41738 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmeTm-00039L-Rr for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:41:59 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f53.google.com ([209.85.160.53]:43780) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmeTi-000391-2D for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:41:57 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1842df7cb53so14658202fac.10 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:41:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681321308; x=1683913308; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=SIeF7xSh1hBlHCIjhxUdqZM0N2CZ0eakxc+WMYmtuY4=; b=jZcVeFJZonhCcFEWWUwaEKbz9er75ee/6gn75dw0oUMVgDT9YyeAhQhK2ABujhSu4E y1rcUh8f9G/Y1Esn+JfxHeI0dvo1bMgAah7NvXg256VKItPIDRX2gZNEysEQZcE/suRy RCeP+3V3l8Qkwdf8eCAdYZ8suOP42gtpSrmEf9BlkFuhfk480sWFmOju2O8XTuOnpiAk 3yg9Yrn59emg+WoLn0vdGGkm+hyUwbPI6m93otcpgBpf5dFlhyo3nyVcDizIinEiECZp AHa94+JqAKXY4IEqUGGwfiVtrnfIgfbVwV7goeCIU+TWoz4/UOgTyQ9LTOvTJOVxmUD9 D8HA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681321308; x=1683913308; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SIeF7xSh1hBlHCIjhxUdqZM0N2CZ0eakxc+WMYmtuY4=; b=RaKn5H1Us9u+Cwq8iEpgd38TlBym950h+JjvzMgDIYCALLUibmf4q++i9KcV3UNX4D YAag3TWIK/ig5TQAaCs6UvGjn+2KWRxr60HN89qgAmKGufF89kMYASQTMsw4fwl5nmRC zoe89Z/ya4gEvcdGpjwYzCVhSg5weOpNT8oxFRXs2CKPFX6TpY+Z/MiBm8JfoL6x5kjM 6fGYwkjOAukHFkD9CV8axdwbHITAzpl7fhPHPHVHz5o8mgO1iUgJnBCehbjjJpbZfw5m bnZQ6z1yURIZ9pYM8K5vhr1zyBhe1YXVf4zaBXQpw/UFpGIupLbAYk+tGJD+t/h2LuQE /SQg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9csLHfGm52USsl/kBUbr0s/8Cz7egF/ocBehO3D8n8b/6SxipWC qF7oDwlw87MNt+VzFenxYoWMXr99DBkUh14MGXc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YjPS/LxP3lAYoJWneYdMojJ2Kn3JDvE5iuS/Vz/k73jqgTK8flHLTYGnIPL63872aVJH0d61pSwwDPaUncSSs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:e0ca:b0:187:773a:3927 with SMTP id a10-20020a056870e0ca00b00187773a3927mr1083913oab.5.1681321304380; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:41:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:43:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 6:22=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:14:28 +0100 > > Cc: "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > > Lars Ingebrigtsen > > > > Please, in normal non-shouting case, explain to me how you think that t= he behavior of an existing > > command can be changed with "completely separate code". > > I already did: either (1) add a prefix argument to an existing > command, which will then trigger the new behavior, or (2) add a > separate command. We're just going in circles. Those ideas don't solve this bug, as hinted by the fact that noone is coming up with the patches you want. I guess people with `(package-install 'eglot)` in their configs will just have to cope with whatever comes of this. As for me, I've put too way too much time and effort into this already, so good luck to all. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 15:08:55 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 19:08:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41818 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmfpu-0005oP-TH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:08:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47420) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmfpq-0005o8-6t for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:08:53 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmfpk-0007eQ-5J; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:08:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=X77Le+ynEA2/EbuApbkwgVnwWBvvDkiFU+5gupp0i1Y=; b=oIi7w61Md1aDQ77GQKNG 9LgySuB3YkFqkhczXMLcSussbBjEmNNpYsra/7tXjCux6+JQFgr18D2Fu9nsY0a+6hXGYlWRRJG+9 Q+om512MDkp/mVTEDUR7Z5Eoqr1GTSG/MYE7e1ftK8UPZfZRn4aNcwI1vd9RIEjUn1sR8g4ThXqQ3 ax0vp61+11oID0ByD7LT3EPNbnmAfgvzrmftaOemu2PopXJwjeT93eT8aoetVkHM+8PGhCBopkLQT Yn6K++wNY3GgYb1mA5JazmRisdcLgKahAecIzVSe2nBE03oPqFSykrScOYcHnlg+VvRAbDhbrSkyD dGaTIcnRGNTVPA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmfpj-0004JI-9i; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:08:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 22:09:28 +0300 Message-Id: <83o7ns6hp3.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:43:35 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:43:35 +0100 > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > > As for me, I've put too way too much time and effort into this > already, so good luck to all. Thank you for your efforts. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 15:39:03 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 19:39:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41829 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmgJ4-0006aT-Mc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:39:03 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:57773) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmgIz-0006Zq-TU for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:39:01 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA542402A0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 21:38:52 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681328332; bh=BFjy2nWNot9H8eHB6wqIBr/boH6jbQSV5FY7/Uj68SQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=LGR2JFPg+bXoQ46dgr0uc1NiVbWyVQ3u91hZfn0gJKgHNxjD7qpZMFx6o3XeLAHFM 7BzEl5fgAwBG7C0jE1y/HrnV48xEbfs2Ks8SMfMY7k5oSkVcRcDxp2Tg2WTDhjVDJ0 K1Q9Pe0dzbJhkvbRAYMRSyTWpNU92391OOQq8D5oBIOu00FHnLxsyCZawVVlRQ89Hu F0SHgpgGMoX1WAOHVsL6tUArHryaTPQqWGC/Y8BOYg3XQFBTT1mbcyp+hHOOD6YnQN XKQJVrXt9KnH3YUlRVcZ9WGl2IWKRIGQhyFu3Lc9RPspu+sbfxDqa6aCihydItYPIF dTCUeidnuOFdQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PxY166zTFz6tw7; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 21:38:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:22:58 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:39:20 +0000 Message-ID: <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora >> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:14:28 +0100 >> Cc: "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier >> , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> Lars Ingebrigtsen >>=20 >> Please, in normal non-shouting case, explain to me how you think >> that the behavior of an existing >> command can be changed with "completely separate code".=20 > > I already did: either (1) add a prefix argument to an existing > command, which will then trigger the new behavior, or (2) add a > separate command. Here you have (1): --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-Allow-upgrading-built-in-packages.patch >From 09a9e769ed0c7024c33bc135c57894daff8764af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Philip Kaludercic Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:26:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Allow upgrading built-in packages * lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el (package--upgradable-built-in-p): Add new utility predicate. (package-compute-transaction): Check if an installed package is built-in while resolving dependencies and allow it to be installed. (package-install): Suggest upgrading built-in packages in the interactive specification, when invoked with a prefix argument. Allow upgrading built-in packages --- lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..03e63ee7227 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -797,6 +797,20 @@ package-built-in-p (require 'finder-inf nil t) ; For `package--builtins'. (assq package package--builtins)))))) +(defun package--upgradable-built-in-p (package) + "Check if a built-in PACKAGE can be upgraded. +This command differs from `package-built-in-p' in that it only +returns a non-nil value if the user has not installed a more +recent version of the package from a package archive." + (and (not (assq (cond + ((package-desc-p package) + (package-desc-name package)) + ((stringp package) (intern package)) + ((symbolp package) package) + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) + (package--alist))) + (package-built-in-p package))) + (defun package--autoloads-file-name (pkg-desc) "Return the absolute name of the autoloads file, sans extension. PKG-DESC is a `package-desc' object." @@ -1908,7 +1922,16 @@ package-compute-transaction (package-version-join (package-desc-version already))))) (cond (already nil) - ((package-installed-p next-pkg next-version) nil) + ;; If a package is installed, we don't need to continue. + ;; Built-in packages constitute an exception, because we want + ;; to allow the user to "upgrade" from a built-in version to a + ;; potentially newer version available on ELPA (bug#62720). + ((and (not (package--upgradable-built-in-p next-pkg)) + (package-installed-p next-pkg next-version))) + ;; The pseudo-package Emacs is always installed and built-in. + ;; It cannot be upgraded, so we make sure not to proceed beyond + ;; this point when resolving dependencies. + ((eq next-pkg 'emacs)) (t ;; A package is required, but not installed. It might also be @@ -2187,7 +2210,9 @@ package-install "Install the package PKG. PKG can be a `package-desc' or a symbol naming one of the available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. When -called interactively, prompt for the package name. +called interactively, prompt for the package name. When invoked +with a prefix argument, the prompt will include built-in packages +that can be upgraded via an archive. Mark the installed package as selected by adding it to `package-selected-packages'. @@ -2205,11 +2230,13 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (and (or (and current-prefix-arg + (package--upgradable-built-in-p (car elt))) + (not (package-installed-p (car elt)))) + (list (car elt)))) + package-archive-contents) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) -- 2.39.2 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 16:10:31 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 20:10:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41866 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmgnX-0007al-4s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:10:31 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:35111) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmgnT-0007aV-5Z for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:10:29 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F9572402BB for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 22:10:21 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681330221; bh=1nGiK8sILhLyJCLIxfBhjHH7wxSyBRQd7FTibJKuyac=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=XJPqwIhHP4VkTYTnq5Pfjoou2/xXuR5oN0FVfP7bF3Qjk8HcKZhElpXGpLn1NmCqH eXQyM/r3Ry3aFJfcTfXQx9zczou8IhYACtbsKk7kfXTzb9FQu62ePTI902NVaX9AVe PqOE1cNWcYQ30fZwXvpOLeeP8q9O6mPANq8R20FqJj88KubDfNn+AcSxBGYD3OHf3w BMKHcIgPBsoTvAHHFYuRnhizd6K+j7Eh9HA8d99zceA6ELAw5c268e/B0q1QwbM/YQ q7wkTOgc1hQNi8dUdmgk/87Y7nblV86nyw8N72bJbaGfFxy3hsBe6+khhOfY1hsBZ5 FVduhWb5knSww== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PxYjS3WKvz6twd; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 22:10:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:18:33 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:10:50 +0000 Message-ID: <87pm88kgj9.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:42:56 +0000 >> >> >> After thinking about this for a bit, I think that the right approach is >> >> to use package-install instead of writing a separate command. After >> >> all, this will make the behaviour of package-install consistent with >> >> that of the package menu. >> > >> > Is this for master or for the release branch? >> >> Personally I am indifferent, it should be compatible with both > > If we want to install this on the release branch, the changes must be > very safe, which in this case basically means "do not touch any code > used when updating non-core packages". > > If the patch you presented is all there is to it, then I'm afraid it > doesn't satisfy the above condition, because it does affect the use > case of updating an ELPA package that is not in core. So I cannot > agree to installing this on emacs-29 in the form you posted, sorry. I understand your concern, >> > And I thought we all agreed built-in packages need special treatment >> > anyway, didn't we? Then why having a separate command is not a >> > natural next step? >> >> I don't necessarily agree that "special treatment" requires a separate >> command. > > Even if you don't agree with that in general, having a separate > command would allow us to install that command on emacs-29 without any > fears. So that alone is a significant advantage, even if the rest are > not yet agreed upon. Would this be a permanent thing, or would the command be deprecated by emacs-30? I get the need under the circumstances, but it doesn't seem like the best solution if we were to set aside release-concerns. >> I think it is wrong the assume that an built-in package should >> automatically be updated to a ELPA package whenever possible. > > This seems to be an argument in favor of a separate command? Or what > did you mean by that, and how is it related to the issue at hand? I don't think package-update should switch from a built-in package to a package that was installed from ELPA. The user should at least once commit to the switch (be it with a separate command or package-install). >> >> It might work but it should be tested somewhat thoroughly before the >> >> patch is applied. In the meantime, I just finished a similar approach >> >> that does not modify `package-installed-p', but just adds another >> >> utility function: >> > >> > A new utility function is fine by me, even if this is e branch. But I >> > don't quite understand how this is supposed to work in package-install >> > to allow updating built-in packages, and do that in a way that will >> > not touch the existing code for non-built-in packages in significant >> > ways (assuming you propose this from the release branch). Can you >> > elaborate on that? >> >> The only reason we couldn't install built-in packages is that when >> planning to install packages `package-compute-transaction' believes that >> if a built-in package is provided, then everything is fine and we don't >> need to proceed with installing any packages. All I propose is to lift >> this assumption, then this works fine. > > My problem is _how_ to lift this assumption. The way you propose > doing that affects updating non-core packages in ways that we will not > have enough time to test well enough, not compared to the year that > these commands exist in package.el and were used by many people in > many cases. So we have the following alternatives for the way > forward: > > . install your changes on master only, and leave the problem of > updating a core package unsolved in Emacs 29 (with the workaround > mentioned in the beginning of this bug's discussion available to > alleviate the problem to some extent) > . come up with safer changes for package-install that could be > installed on emacs-29 > . add a new command for updating a core package, which can then be > safely installed on emacs-29 > > The last 2 alternatives can be for emacs-29 only, whereas on master we > install your proposed change (or something else). I would like to investigate option 2, but if nothing is found we can fall back to 3. But even if there are issues in this case, I don't consider the matter in general to be that drastic. If all Joao wants is to avoid confusion, we can also improve the error message that `package-install' generates when it says that a package ins already installed. > For the 2nd alternative above to be acceptable, the added/modified > code must be completely separate from the code we have now, so that > any possibility of its destabilizing the current code could be > eliminated. It could be a separate code, triggered by the prefix > argument, for example. OK. >> One point that might be deliberated is that this means all built-in >> dependencies are also installed, even if these are not strictly >> necessary. It shouldn't matter that much, since most users would >> upgrade them eventually, but worth mentioning I guess? > > That just confirms my fears that we are opening a Pandora's box. We > have no idea what this will do, and no time to test the results. > Unintended consequences are abundant. We must draw any such > consequences to the absolute minimum, at least the way the commands > work by default. Even if the result is less than elegant. Intuitively I would want to argue that this change has an upper-bound to how much harm it could do, but as I cannot prove it in any way I'll rather not assert that the point. >> >> +(defun package-core-p (package) >> >> + "Return non-nil the built-in version of PACKAGE is loaded." >> > >> > Didn't you say the "core" terminology was confusing people? >> >> TBH I am not really satisfied with the name (so any other suggestion is >> just as fine for me), and as Joao said it would be better to make the >> predicate as internal so that users are not expected to deal with it. > > The name should still be self-explanatory enough, because we the Emacs > maintainers will read this code and should be able to understand what > the function does without reading is source every time. OK. >> >> >> + (let ((package (if (package-desc-p package) >> >> + (package-desc-name package) >> >> + package))) >> >> + (and (assq package (package--alist)) >> >> + (package-built-in-p package)))) >> > >> > It sounds like this doesn't check whether a package is "core", it >> > checks whether it's built-in and can be updated? So maybe the name >> > should be changed to reflect that? And the doc string as well (what >> > it means by "is loaded")? >> >> Right the "loaded" doesn't make sense. How about this: >> >> +(defun package--upgradable-built-in-p (package) >> + "Check if a built-in PACKAGE can be upgraded. >> +This command differs from `package-built-in-p' in that it only >> +returns a non-nil value if the user has not installed a more >> +recent version of the package from a package archive." > > Note that what the doc string says is not what the name tells us. > "Upgradeable" and "user has not installed a more recent version" are > not the same. What the doc string says calls for a name like > package--built-in-and-up-to-date or something. > >> + (and (not (assq (cond >> + ((package-desc-p package) >> + (package-desc-name package)) >> + ((stringp package) (intern package)) >> + ((symbolp package) package) >> + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) >> + (package--alist))) >> + (package-built-in-p package))) > > Why do we need all these conditions, where we didn't need them in the > current code? Practically speaking these conditions are not necessary, I just added it in case there was the need to use the function elsewhere at some point. > Also, package-alist is documented as "alist of all packages available > for activation", so it is not clear how the fact that assq returns nil > is evidence that "the user has not installed a more recent version". > Looking at what package--alist and package-load-all-descriptors do, it > looks like they just collect packages that were downloaded into the > relevant directories? Is that enough to consider any package not in > the list to be "not installed"? The point is that package.el will add all packages it manages (ie. are "available to activation") to package-alist. Built-in/core packages are not managed by package.el, but just "acknowledged" via `package--builtins'. So this looks like a safe assumption to me. > And what about the "more recent > version" condition -- this doesn't seem to be tested anywhere in > package--alist? You are right, but this is a misphrasing. > The above questions and undocumented subtleties is what scares me in > installing such changes at this late stage. I'm not sure everyone > involved, yourself included, have a clear understanding of what the > modified code will do in each possible use case. That is why I very > much prefer separate code, which will then free us from the need of > considering all these subtleties, as the last year of user's > experience with this code can vouch that it does its job correctly, by > and large. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 12 16:50:15 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 20:50:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41915 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmhPy-0000ED-2m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:50:15 -0400 Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.229]:56281) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmhPt-0000Dv-Hp for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:50:13 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76ABE580062; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:50:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681332604; x=1681336204; bh=LqhXyadfcxWLPtTnoMU6VSlsYrny0pcjGM1 wWJlrM2k=; b=qbh4M7/L9bSlrxxxgvDk2jbObC+/gXWg9WnsxeMYzaPd1bMr6C0 K4iq/G7LnYTj3DXa8wF2D1sx1OlVKtdXZcNYKqQ2JaeV54tNo4ZBIVmZMDFQkAM6 2RazSbwjOu/MTwOEpmZlv9EuLbxtxTsCSoS6J9PRWDJ4VrPm1v8c7r6xqE6A2nMk Bu+Hd+lzQIDA+kqjUTlxrYHJyFZZ7BuRLfq65yzkaJaHLnoXJv+cJCg6fD+Mi039 eXf4LsBqPfM0kRtJaP8kJljgUk3sZo2+UChSABBGEnqz0sw8jlIPiUL/Q4Wmwel7 IuLFqW0XXfiU+LUokYOo9xFHbxB6UBawDvg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681332604; x=1681336204; bh=LqhXyadfcxWLPtTnoMU6VSlsYrny0pcjGM1 wWJlrM2k=; b=ZWAyzD1GannKUebZjP7nyS3ZrJTJlv987prh18UnJ0vBqUsymtZ 9t/z0J+e3qBBZAz0rNFxZ7NNTF5uXN/ngoBfhgYwWyUPIDHt6osM69sQ/NyH1trx KBcBRgEl2OuFipBKK590JPn66GMccMgjKYDAqfRwmSyumx5LN2V/WjS8J+2PkVpk QL4XlQ80utHuL5hCUwFvcJ1PVylxSvhFzHu5grW6FmgXOFSD88nWQ9wVgTvoecZ8 nMRfk2hKjNVNbymdr+qmDjVAl/351XYDNDyZ9MG8RFhMZEoO6hGKaHrxbon/OqBh ERVHJpwZagpikZna+dlnOu34gu5nY0nubgw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdekiedgudehhecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpefhffehleejffegffeugefhkeektdffgfehjedvgeejtedtudehueffgffg feejheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 23:50:00 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= , Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2modrm.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <834jpl6qi0.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.1 (--) On 12/04/2023 19:29, João Távora wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:58 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >>>>> Had another idea: what about this very tiny patch, then? It makes `M-x >>>>> package-install` work for installing a :core package. This also rhymes >>>>> exactly with Stefan's intution/feeling that :core packages need to be >>>>> "installed" to promote them to installable. The current M-x >>>>> package-install recommendation could remain flawlessly and then you can >>>>> do whatever you think is best for M-x package-update & friends. >>>> This has the same problem: it modifies a function that is called in >>>> too many places. package-installed-p has half a dozen callers in >>>> package.el alone. The change is tiny, but what about its >>>> implications on every use case where it is involved? >>> What if we only fix 'package-upgrade' (nee package-update) in emacs-29? >> I believe that's what João was proposing. > AFAICT, Dmitry was asking only for package-update, not > package-update-all. Stefan was also inclined for that. > > In my changes, I changed both. But it is not hard for me to touch > only package-update and to do it with the utmost care for > separation and stability. I think that would make sense. Like Philip phrased it, updating from a bundled version is like switching to a different package repository, with different stability expectations. I also seem to recall some logic somewhere that made sure that the package is only updated from the source that it was installed from (unless explicitly instructed otherwise by the user). We could treat "builtins" as a separate source for that purpose, too. > For the moment, I'm focusing on M-x package-install, like Philip is. > There seems to be more consensus there that it should offer to update > builtin packages that have never been updated. > > I do believe there is high demand for a "upgrade/update" mechanism > that just "updates whatever there is to update, don't care if core > or whatnot" and people looking at package-update-all and > package-menu--mark-upgrades (the "U" command Dmitry brought up) > will eventually be disappointed. I think "U" should only update the packages that are either not built-in, or the built-ins that have been at least updated once (meaning, some "external" version is already installed). For reasons of stability, mostly. But using 'M-x package-upgrade' would opt-in individual packages into that upgrading mechanism too. That might not be everyone's cup of tea, so adding a user option like 'package-upgrade-all-builtins' would work too, allowing the user to opt into the more risky behavior. The semantics of 'package-install' are less clear to me. E.g. it wouldn't be out of the question to always error out when the package (some version) is already installed. So I could see it being "fixed" either way sometime in the future. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 01:30:10 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 05:30:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42370 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmpX8-00013C-8U for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:30:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56294) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmpX6-00011k-Rl for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:30:09 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmpX1-0001fM-7X; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:30:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=M9thaa25xasGw2eEQXM03njFsu0uFfnz1rD++OXLVv8=; b=aavhBRZS9MK6Dk8P2I8T dZGPrv0ynBP2U015wCHfPEOENXczPLzbQNMLMPRW9Dty0JeKo3RDfVI7/+witmc958owsva8XJbpX D7bRYnsa/YrCY3ocQv5D4EO0ngaiNysPWVgJOh9uUt8Ci0hKPxQXe5FB6drbZULf+LhYgvYNJMoCe sKBDAycKyldYax2DfwHFXfR1pDtl4vjbVzVTCBy7BBayTttFeXYrDlOmaupAy6ORh7dVJXMMZR5vl ep4UWQm0fPFhvF7SD/aQFkoSU4wirP7DIgQDfyQvISh5x71DCV4ajrTmLQEYmVMExS/woYmHToECJ iznBEpP2i7+1lw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmpWz-0006UM-TW; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:30:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:30:49 +0300 Message-Id: <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:39:20 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: João Távora , > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:39:20 +0000 > > >> Please, in normal non-shouting case, explain to me how you think > >> that the behavior of an existing > >> command can be changed with "completely separate code". > > > > I already did: either (1) add a prefix argument to an existing > > command, which will then trigger the new behavior, or (2) add a > > separate command. > > Here you have (1): Thanks. This is almost on-target, but it modifies package-compute-transaction. Is that necessary? > +(defun package--upgradable-built-in-p (package) > + "Check if a built-in PACKAGE can be upgraded. > +This command differs from `package-built-in-p' in that it only ^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is not a command, this is a function. Also, the name has a problem I pointed out earlier in this discussion: "upgradeable" does not tell well enough what the function tests. > @@ -2187,7 +2210,9 @@ package-install > "Install the package PKG. > PKG can be a `package-desc' or a symbol naming one of the > available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. When > -called interactively, prompt for the package name. > +called interactively, prompt for the package name. When invoked > +with a prefix argument, the prompt will include built-in packages > +that can be upgraded via an archive. I wonder whether an invocation with the prefix argument should include _only_ built-in packages in the prompt? This could be a useful feature regardless, and so would allow us to keep this option for future uses. Finally, there's still discussion going on whether built-in packages should be handled only by package-update, not by package-install, since built-in packages are always "installed". WDYT? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 01:49:14 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 05:49:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42381 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmppZ-0001jX-L8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:49:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41422) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmppU-0001iy-6O for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:49:11 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmppN-0005nk-7q; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:49:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=tOgXcvfK8h2jG9HiL2Tq7K7k5J0blVDHP9ctT/ubEV4=; b=YlHHhc5JP+Bb NxJLMQzE6pPqw5OfFslNsb2P4LjzWmi2tlf1CsGVpsKXI3d5UwPZg4LmXf8AEqAH4JbCC5q+UBOGf OiZwFeJEPnfMopBRnFoqgc0lnXQ8MFSzzlOOhAMT3ZVvqUge1XL+VJOgsYRQajNvAEhCVp8FNrSnI sgDBcZQ9A3xoojzvoQ5OsnzYWLecuzmWh7d8P3MZI6sMfsVDqarx0ie5ACoaJX16r9lw8R5Ir+A51 wGSpHegZPj6b6QcxuuZZo38B5RMcjaDcsVgMLqZpPa9fstaRJ2Fd8ttk99zN5AVKks/z5yBllxnBs qEcOQWNb9RlOHp4RvcImtA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmppM-0001J9-DT; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:49:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:49:46 +0300 Message-Id: <83bkjs5o1x.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87pm88kgj9.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:10:50 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm88kgj9.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:10:50 +0000 > > >> > And I thought we all agreed built-in packages need special treatment > >> > anyway, didn't we? Then why having a separate command is not a > >> > natural next step? > >> > >> I don't necessarily agree that "special treatment" requires a separate > >> command. > > > > Even if you don't agree with that in general, having a separate > > command would allow us to install that command on emacs-29 without any > > fears. So that alone is a significant advantage, even if the rest are > > not yet agreed upon. > > Would this be a permanent thing, or would the command be deprecated by > emacs-30? I get the need under the circumstances, but it doesn't seem > like the best solution if we were to set aside release-concerns. We could keep the separate command on master as well, at least until it is obvious that a special command is not needed in any use case. The time to revisit this is when we take some practical steps towards removing from emacs.git packages that are on ELPA and figuring out how to bundle them with a release tarball and how to let users upgrade them after they install a released Emacs. It could be that when we implement all that, there will be some aspects of upgrading core packages that will benefit from having a separate command. If we find this is not needed, we can deprecate the command at that time. Mind you, the command I have in mind is one that will allow upgrading _only_ built-in packages, i.e. it will not deal with the packages that don't come with an Emacs tarball. > >> I think it is wrong the assume that an built-in package should > >> automatically be updated to a ELPA package whenever possible. > > > > This seems to be an argument in favor of a separate command? Or what > > did you mean by that, and how is it related to the issue at hand? > > I don't think package-update should switch from a built-in package to a > package that was installed from ELPA. The user should at least once > commit to the switch (be it with a separate command or package-install). I tend to agree. Although, once again, we should revisit this when core packages are no longer in emacs.git. Taking a perhaps somewhat different analogy of updating my smartphone, there's no particular difference between updating a "built-in" app, one that is part of the smartphone's system components and came with it OOTB, and updating any other app, including those I installed myself. I think the same is true for updating system components and applications from any modern distro, isn't it? So this is yet to be decided, but for now we can use this more conservative policy. > > . install your changes on master only, and leave the problem of > > updating a core package unsolved in Emacs 29 (with the workaround > > mentioned in the beginning of this bug's discussion available to > > alleviate the problem to some extent) > > . come up with safer changes for package-install that could be > > installed on emacs-29 > > . add a new command for updating a core package, which can then be > > safely installed on emacs-29 > > > > The last 2 alternatives can be for emacs-29 only, whereas on master we > > install your proposed change (or something else). > > I would like to investigate option 2, but if nothing is found we can > fall back to 3. But even if there are issues in this case, I don't > consider the matter in general to be that drastic. If all Joao wants is > to avoid confusion, we can also improve the error message that > `package-install' generates when it says that a package ins already > installed. Yes, I think if we go with the modified package-install or package-update, then invoking them in a way that doesn't update built-in packages should reflect that in the error message, and also tell how to invoke them to be able to upgrade a built-in package. > >> One point that might be deliberated is that this means all built-in > >> dependencies are also installed, even if these are not strictly > >> necessary. It shouldn't matter that much, since most users would > >> upgrade them eventually, but worth mentioning I guess? > > > > That just confirms my fears that we are opening a Pandora's box. We > > have no idea what this will do, and no time to test the results. > > Unintended consequences are abundant. We must draw any such > > consequences to the absolute minimum, at least the way the commands > > work by default. Even if the result is less than elegant. > > Intuitively I would want to argue that this change has an upper-bound to > how much harm it could do, but as I cannot prove it in any way I'll > rather not assert that the point. There is, of course, an upper bound. But I don't think we know how high that is at this time. Bitter experience has taught me that we are not very good in predicting that. > >> + (and (not (assq (cond > >> + ((package-desc-p package) > >> + (package-desc-name package)) > >> + ((stringp package) (intern package)) > >> + ((symbolp package) package) > >> + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) > >> + (package--alist))) > >> + (package-built-in-p package))) > > > > Why do we need all these conditions, where we didn't need them in the > > current code? > > Practically speaking these conditions are not necessary, I just added it > in case there was the need to use the function elsewhere at some point. Then maybe these conditions should be only on master. > > Also, package-alist is documented as "alist of all packages available > > for activation", so it is not clear how the fact that assq returns nil > > is evidence that "the user has not installed a more recent version". > > Looking at what package--alist and package-load-all-descriptors do, it > > looks like they just collect packages that were downloaded into the > > relevant directories? Is that enough to consider any package not in > > the list to be "not installed"? > > The point is that package.el will add all packages it manages (ie. are > "available to activation") to package-alist. Built-in/core packages are > not managed by package.el, but just "acknowledged" via > `package--builtins'. So this looks like a safe assumption to me. These subtleties should ideally be documented somewhere in package.el. Without being aware of all that, it is hard to read the code of package.el and understand what it does and why, and the names and doc strings of the relevant symbols in most cases don't help, as they all use vague and too-broad words to describe their purpose and effects. > > And what about the "more recent > > version" condition -- this doesn't seem to be tested anywhere in > > package--alist? > > You are right, but this is a misphrasing. How so? what should be said instead? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 03:38:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 07:38:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42456 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmrX2-0004uV-Ta for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 03:38:13 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:59575) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmrWz-0004uG-Ku for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 03:38:11 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE2232400D0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:38:02 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681371482; bh=4lQ/WtmbS0jnXrsEcJCMle/YUc2uCqZhqNCvg7aSDvA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=Q2Y7rnui/gjq4OdukyZa2z0EkrVg81B0i34MUuO7fhjJpARtDB4+0l2RAoxFr1agl SILUOVAWjn1Tsge9a2QzYPKqAx26YLskMv68rsGBaBB3VByeipxh4nSpuGM4uiXn5y k06F1w0ERJBGTAOZz6M1Gcae+tY3NLwKrJH4hs1+HNfbE2PaecvE32PesJlPIe2hdb 45Lwiwsi+jncluZ9yyNUHdbS7NhPokmai6qbDv/RlcobDGc4cqf0f3f+sPClRfXbws gua40PO0jt3lHeTqeSlVr0expPoPID1qBXG7dSZ5cvXimnVFMhlclDFbqvImpdzCFQ Jv3MxCLfkzUIQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Pxryv4wlHz9rxD; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:37:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:30:49 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:38:28 +0000 Message-ID: <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora , >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, >> 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:39:20 +0000 >>=20 >> >> Please, in normal non-shouting case, explain to me how you think >> >> that the behavior of an existing >> >> command can be changed with "completely separate code".=20 >> > >> > I already did: either (1) add a prefix argument to an existing >> > command, which will then trigger the new behavior, or (2) add a >> > separate command. >>=20 >> Here you have (1): > > Thanks. This is almost on-target, but it modifies > package-compute-transaction. Is that necessary? I have found an alternative that doesn't change the way `package-compute-transaction' works, but requires a small change in `package-install': --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..461e92f27d8 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -797,6 +797,17 @@ package-built-in-p (require 'finder-inf nil t) ; For `package--builtins'. (assq package package--builtins)))))) +(defun package--upgradable-built-in-p (package) + "Return non-nil if PACKAGE if the built-in version is used." + (and (not (assq (cond + ((package-desc-p package) + (package-desc-name package)) + ((stringp package) (intern package)) + ((symbolp package) package) + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) + (package--alist))) + (package-built-in-p package))) + (defun package--autoloads-file-name (pkg-desc) "Return the absolute name of the autoloads file, sans extension. PKG-DESC is a `package-desc' object." @@ -2187,7 +2198,9 @@ package-install "Install the package PKG. PKG can be a `package-desc' or a symbol naming one of the available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. When -called interactively, prompt for the package name. +called interactively, prompt for the package name. When invoked +with a prefix argument, the prompt will include built-in packages +that can be upgraded via an archive. Mark the installed package as selected by adding it to `package-selected-packages'. @@ -2205,11 +2218,13 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (and (or (and current-prefix-arg + (package--upgradable-built-in-p (car elt))) + (not (package-installed-p (car elt)))) + (list (car elt)))) + package-archive-contents) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) @@ -2221,11 +2236,16 @@ package-install (package--save-selected-packages (cons name package-selected-packages))) (if-let* ((transaction - (if (package-desc-p pkg) - (unless (package-installed-p pkg) - (package-compute-transaction (list pkg) - (package-desc-reqs pkg))) - (package-compute-transaction () (list (list pkg)))))) + (cond + ((package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg) + (let ((desc (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) + (package-compute-transaction + (list desc) (package-desc-reqs desc)))) + ((package-desc-p pkg) + (and (not (package-installed-p pkg)) + (package-compute-transaction + (list pkg) (package-desc-reqs pkg)))) + ((package-compute-transaction () (list (list pkg))))))) (progn (package-download-transaction transaction) (package--quickstart-maybe-refresh) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The idea here is that if we detect that a package is built-in, we "pre-compute" part of the transaction and resolve the rest. This does not install any unnecessary dependencies. When `package-install' is invoked interactively without a prefix argument, the "new" code cannot run, since none of the completion candidates satisfy `package--upgradable-built-in-p' (or whatever we end up calling the predicate). Note that (package-install 'eglot) does download code, but I believe that this is the correct approach and would align with what Jo=C3=A3o wanted. >> +(defun package--upgradable-built-in-p (package) >> + "Check if a built-in PACKAGE can be upgraded. >> +This command differs from `package-built-in-p' in that it only > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This is not a command, this is a function. I will address these issues as soon as we have working code. > Also, the name has a problem I pointed out earlier in this discussion: > "upgradeable" does not tell well enough what the function tests. > >> @@ -2187,7 +2210,9 @@ package-install >> "Install the package PKG. >> PKG can be a `package-desc' or a symbol naming one of the >> available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. When >> -called interactively, prompt for the package name. >> +called interactively, prompt for the package name. When invoked >> +with a prefix argument, the prompt will include built-in packages >> +that can be upgraded via an archive. > > I wonder whether an invocation with the prefix argument should include > _only_ built-in packages in the prompt? This could be a useful > feature regardless, and so would allow us to keep this option for > future uses. > > Finally, there's still discussion going on whether built-in packages > should be handled only by package-update, not by package-install, > since built-in packages are always "installed". WDYT? --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 04:10:31 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 08:10:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42489 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pms2J-0005tB-74 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 04:10:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38858) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pms2G-0005sw-5h for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 04:10:30 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pms2A-0005H2-Dx; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 04:10:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=MSc3FPpclkZ7M0EWL2BL1LJfIHCXZ8h8BnAv0UNlEGU=; b=gi5k2NP+shn6r//w17ki 2aIc8UOpIQ++xlpdhF47fAGg31Ks6+Bux17DjyH/FD7ZyiZmomvY5w/x18SthSDYo56KDSJfZz9kG uoz/lb+4dfTeBbmihudvMMxP/mg1QnpG2r8TuFNKlBPNGB7l2YVuFiC2aRPaEA0QPCgfXaTfEqQ5j aQ11xnbZwm3nldqqDKz76oXhGeVOVDaY/ndvjKJvxusLJtKFqZQ41PmNtS/jY8uYwOPArE2x9SMlw 0Yf6wRCDA4UwyZwuXG3wx6BwMuN1vfyz0ETk4Wkj/+biLZ+LXMLW93/yE7gq8wmHxpfpeN1XmdsRj tB7t0kjNJTLeOg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pms24-0007MS-DC; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 04:10:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:11:02 +0300 Message-Id: <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:38:28 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:38:28 +0000 > > > Thanks. This is almost on-target, but it modifies > > package-compute-transaction. Is that necessary? > > I have found an alternative that doesn't change the way > `package-compute-transaction' works, but requires a small change in > `package-install': Thanks. > @@ -2205,11 +2218,13 @@ package-install > (package--archives-initialize) > (list (intern (completing-read > "Install package: " > - (delq nil > - (mapcar (lambda (elt) > - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) > - (symbol-name (car elt)))) > - package-archive-contents)) > + (mapcan > + (lambda (elt) > + (and (or (and current-prefix-arg > + (package--upgradable-built-in-p (car elt))) > + (not (package-installed-p (car elt)))) > + (list (car elt)))) > + package-archive-contents) Why did the original code use symbol-name, but the new one doesn't? > @@ -2221,11 +2236,16 @@ package-install > (package--save-selected-packages > (cons name package-selected-packages))) > (if-let* ((transaction > - (if (package-desc-p pkg) > - (unless (package-installed-p pkg) > - (package-compute-transaction (list pkg) > - (package-desc-reqs pkg))) > - (package-compute-transaction () (list (list pkg)))))) > + (cond > + ((package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg) > + (let ((desc (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) > + (package-compute-transaction > + (list desc) (package-desc-reqs desc)))) > + ((package-desc-p pkg) > + (and (not (package-installed-p pkg)) > + (package-compute-transaction > + (list pkg) (package-desc-reqs pkg)))) > + ((package-compute-transaction () (list (list pkg))))))) I think the first condition of 'cond' should be ((and current-prefix-arg (package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg)) to make sure we don't affect the non-prefix-arg invocations in any way. > Note that (package-install 'eglot) does download code, but I believe > that this is the correct approach and would align with what João > wanted. I'm not sure I follow: which code does the above download? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 07:22:53 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 11:22:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42714 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmv2T-000340-4i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:22:53 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:44791) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmv2Q-00033m-Kq for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:22:51 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA3F924030E for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:22:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681384964; bh=ILYMO3jIQZ+Wblct0fqJOm9+bHBdYMOSrT3YIpgjjaQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=GDISsSUWQ4rIythtKp/uN3ZyOPJKzSYCOS3DIoI2MRwIjNkLwNxKAWbQTcKUs40Bk e2ryXjeQFj7c+upu4jqmjiGaLeg1tYSXJ+AMk9/yWtVcBTElGkNV97olq5GRYF1wWw 3B8uksPBjurnhJLH9HLxKyEy1MmF3GwYXGhQpX/b58uK9/uUrevgbzsRgyvu4LFSP8 o1aEGcLug/y7d7WETsntWuZVsHZM3VhcJIEXkcePavP+Ph/snbwNIizeTPf1MpfNgN F8eROCHHvMHoBKN2rM61esKoLsDJNQ0Ncb2Q1RnHPY6SNZ3aecXDswqPfc+BRGHtXY RRKama+GajxuA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Pxxy94Q9Bz6tx0; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:22:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:11:02 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:23:12 +0000 Message-ID: <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.= org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:38:28 +0000 >>=20 >> > Thanks. This is almost on-target, but it modifies >> > package-compute-transaction. Is that necessary? >>=20 >> I have found an alternative that doesn't change the way >> `package-compute-transaction' works, but requires a small change in >> `package-install': > > Thanks. > >> @@ -2205,11 +2218,13 @@ package-install >> (package--archives-initialize) >> (list (intern (completing-read >> "Install package: " >> - (delq nil >> - (mapcar (lambda (elt) >> - (unless (package-installed-p (car e= lt)) >> - (symbol-name (car elt)))) >> - package-archive-contents)) >> + (mapcan >> + (lambda (elt) >> + (and (or (and current-prefix-arg >> + (package--upgradable-built-in-p (c= ar elt))) >> + (not (package-installed-p (car elt)))) >> + (list (car elt)))) >> + package-archive-contents) > > Why did the original code use symbol-name, but the new one doesn't? To my knowledge, completing-read given a collection of symbols will use the symbol names as candidates, or is this more complicated? >> @@ -2221,11 +2236,16 @@ package-install >> (package--save-selected-packages >> (cons name package-selected-packages))) >> (if-let* ((transaction >> - (if (package-desc-p pkg) >> - (unless (package-installed-p pkg) >> - (package-compute-transaction (list pkg) >> - (package-desc-reqs pk= g))) >> - (package-compute-transaction () (list (list pkg)))))) >> + (cond >> + ((package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg) >> + (let ((desc (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)= ))) >> + (package-compute-transaction >> + (list desc) (package-desc-reqs desc)))) >> + ((package-desc-p pkg) >> + (and (not (package-installed-p pkg)) >> + (package-compute-transaction >> + (list pkg) (package-desc-reqs pkg)))) >> + ((package-compute-transaction () (list (list pkg))))))) > > I think the first condition of 'cond' should be > > ((and current-prefix-arg (package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg)) > > to make sure we don't affect the non-prefix-arg invocations in any > way. The issue here is that this breaks the non-interactive invocations like (package-install 'eglot), unless they invoke the function while binding `current-prefix-arg', which I don't think is a common practice. >> Note that (package-install 'eglot) does download code, but I believe >> that this is the correct approach and would align with what Jo=C3=A3o >> wanted. > > I'm not sure I follow: which code does the above download? I did not change any of the code that downloads anything, all this does is prompt the user for built-in packages when invoked interactively with a prefix argument and if package-install is invoked with a built-in package, then it will switch to the ELPA version. This will not happen in interactive usage, since `completing-read' is called with REQUIRE-MATCH. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 11:02:40 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 15:02:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44447 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmyT9-0006jZ-QG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:02:40 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58514) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmyT8-0006jM-5a for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:02:39 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmyT2-0003y3-C2; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:02:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=uHV/oX0DpGOw+fGC6KK3yxogFhYFGhySjBKNErxJ4MI=; b=HOKXPT2gWd91g3UBa4/2 oCDEsfQdIlkWj4lePJnqLndf6nztomr/2cYbKFtMhmZLQ+K/Esw8d7REhINjwTSXxkLPdQ+NhSqli gRAuZQfs4/zdTRIlt46a75CG72epIxP6XzsbNGZjvJiKjmGRlxKu+S7mJG34IZeCdiHYf6e8B5++c GWTF6ZNEA6yE62D0fF3Rz+SxQqk5NOUFtX9123wIF28N9RAUwxCm8KirZ/U79bi9RwUh3/p5WjkJW etw1kCzvYUxJfQ/NmzKRVgEJIm6Zwyxbsfjxbb9SoqbyGysc7mI8nigcvqSEs52cSH+nhlH5ic37e dG6UIr7Bup/ukA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmyT1-0004Uh-QN; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:02:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:03:19 +0300 Message-Id: <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:23:12 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:23:12 +0000 > > > Why did the original code use symbol-name, but the new one doesn't? > > To my knowledge, completing-read given a collection of symbols will use > the symbol names as candidates, or is this more complicated? So you are saying that the symbol-name call in the original code was simply redundant? > >> @@ -2221,11 +2236,16 @@ package-install > >> (package--save-selected-packages > >> (cons name package-selected-packages))) > >> (if-let* ((transaction > >> - (if (package-desc-p pkg) > >> - (unless (package-installed-p pkg) > >> - (package-compute-transaction (list pkg) > >> - (package-desc-reqs pkg))) > >> - (package-compute-transaction () (list (list pkg)))))) > >> + (cond > >> + ((package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg) > >> + (let ((desc (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) > >> + (package-compute-transaction > >> + (list desc) (package-desc-reqs desc)))) > >> + ((package-desc-p pkg) > >> + (and (not (package-installed-p pkg)) > >> + (package-compute-transaction > >> + (list pkg) (package-desc-reqs pkg)))) > >> + ((package-compute-transaction () (list (list pkg))))))) > > > > I think the first condition of 'cond' should be > > > > ((and current-prefix-arg (package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg)) > > > > to make sure we don't affect the non-prefix-arg invocations in any > > way. > > The issue here is that this breaks the non-interactive invocations like > (package-install 'eglot), unless they invoke the function while binding > `current-prefix-arg', which I don't think is a common practice. Then let's add another optional argument, and let prefix arg set it. Would that resolve this issue? > >> Note that (package-install 'eglot) does download code, but I believe > >> that this is the correct approach and would align with what João > >> wanted. > > > > I'm not sure I follow: which code does the above download? > > I did not change any of the code that downloads anything, all this does > is prompt the user for built-in packages when invoked interactively with > a prefix argument and if package-install is invoked with a built-in > package, then it will switch to the ELPA version. This will not happen > in interactive usage, since `completing-read' is called with > REQUIRE-MATCH. So you are saying that non-interactive calls to package-install could install Eglot from ELPA even without the changes, is that right? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 11:09:46 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 15:09:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44459 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmya2-0006vZ-Ev for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:09:46 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:47331) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmyZw-0006vE-V4 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:09:44 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02281240425 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:09:33 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681398574; bh=oz99EXs0DiQThzfRoxXQ5Ygj1DXft2+KjR/L7pqetsk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=OE8TFhg3pj2L9iysxBiQv7mCcFJvde6Jr/5z2DYZM8fieXZeRz/0qzonQZGjMynjc 8oZvMtofUfOCM+SD/z2As8tjpVAsdGKVZul6wVzSKGRFo/lYsI94dzsda4QXQlAg0R twlxmP+vYReaTszcCVlckgZJVdYVkl0/96yWvXWehdcw8vUtWk/8rOTlp6nUsIfmjX aytNmljZ5HwocgSD6IiP/vHf2B3Sx4qDUbrdcFdP4Nau0vyQgEB81+aQUnx4ymXiL3 OSu43aBVgQ44Yf3MBpeyOWdI/5aIv+GJyG/2vkvG0a2myR3qbUCBfuCpuNFfzGmtSw oh7nlFjExy0DQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Py2zw2VRLz6tvl; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:09:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:03:19 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:10:01 +0000 Message-ID: <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.= org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:23:12 +0000 >>=20 >> > Why did the original code use symbol-name, but the new one doesn't? >>=20 >> To my knowledge, completing-read given a collection of symbols will use >> the symbol names as candidates, or is this more complicated? > > So you are saying that the symbol-name call in the original code was > simply redundant? Yes, it appears so. >> >> @@ -2221,11 +2236,16 @@ package-install >> >> (package--save-selected-packages >> >> (cons name package-selected-packages))) >> >> (if-let* ((transaction >> >> - (if (package-desc-p pkg) >> >> - (unless (package-installed-p pkg) >> >> - (package-compute-transaction (list pkg) >> >> - (package-desc-reqs= pkg))) >> >> - (package-compute-transaction () (list (list pkg))))= )) >> >> + (cond >> >> + ((package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg) >> >> + (let ((desc (cadr (assq name package-archive-conten= ts)))) >> >> + (package-compute-transaction >> >> + (list desc) (package-desc-reqs desc)))) >> >> + ((package-desc-p pkg) >> >> + (and (not (package-installed-p pkg)) >> >> + (package-compute-transaction >> >> + (list pkg) (package-desc-reqs pkg)))) >> >> + ((package-compute-transaction () (list (list pkg))))= ))) >> > >> > I think the first condition of 'cond' should be >> > >> > ((and current-prefix-arg (package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg)) >> > >> > to make sure we don't affect the non-prefix-arg invocations in any >> > way. >>=20 >> The issue here is that this breaks the non-interactive invocations like >> (package-install 'eglot), unless they invoke the function while binding >> `current-prefix-arg', which I don't think is a common practice. > > Then let's add another optional argument, and let prefix arg set it. > Would that resolve this issue? That could solve it, but a user option might be more elegant. We could set it to nil for now, and change it to non-nil for the next release. >> >> Note that (package-install 'eglot) does download code, but I believe >> >> that this is the correct approach and would align with what Jo=C3=A3o >> >> wanted. >> > >> > I'm not sure I follow: which code does the above download? >>=20 >> I did not change any of the code that downloads anything, all this does >> is prompt the user for built-in packages when invoked interactively with >> a prefix argument and if package-install is invoked with a built-in >> package, then it will switch to the ELPA version. This will not happen >> in interactive usage, since `completing-read' is called with >> REQUIRE-MATCH. > > So you are saying that non-interactive calls to package-install could > install Eglot from ELPA even without the changes, is that right? No, my proposed diff changes what package decides to download (the planning phase), but doesn't touch anything after that. The current state is that (package-install 'eglot) just prints =E2=80=98eglot=E2=80=99 is already installed From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 11:14:32 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 15:14:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44464 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmyee-00073I-9W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:14:32 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:40623) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmyeb-000733-98 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:14:31 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4270F24043F for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:14:23 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681398863; bh=F7wSEqbUqH464D5B5P/AyYndxmYaHKHp1F/55ReFQp0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=OsuA/NG2WLaSA7fxbTLg0Z9GHy0GZmNOKOChsohQ9/jCHLXKNqu+dS/z+eA/620Gi gyfkDOE31jTGOMJcXa0CF5+5gDaUrH1unsglcFXKZnwU01jq8fJ44WO3AESDO8c210 h6aZ6H/vvRO0FBeQ6pSk76ZKKtfijCP4xTCbfGp2z5KeaRX/QL/BGX6NcozSyu2st4 hWSn85yTgB1dIc+GH1foAYPLu/mDz5tag/sBIhAVhfLvkyThiixmxNl5FHjs++N1cO z+sFoEAYkFFecGLAyg811bppy2+oJtK4kmxtO3ahGVsX+XE+W3sQWfrP4c5CvhjvMP VJa4NqYGDcGWw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Py35V0xR2z9rxR; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:14:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:38:28 +0200") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:14:51 +0000 Message-ID: <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Philip Kaludercic writes: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > >>> From: Philip Kaludercic >>> Cc: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora , >>> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, >>> 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org >>> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:39:20 +0000 >>>=20 >>> >> Please, in normal non-shouting case, explain to me how you think >>> >> that the behavior of an existing >>> >> command can be changed with "completely separate code".=20 >>> > >>> > I already did: either (1) add a prefix argument to an existing >>> > command, which will then trigger the new behavior, or (2) add a >>> > separate command. >>>=20 >>> Here you have (1): >> >> Thanks. This is almost on-target, but it modifies >> package-compute-transaction. Is that necessary? > > I have found an alternative that doesn't change the way > `package-compute-transaction' works, but requires a small change in > `package-install': I have found a smaller but equivalent change that would also solve the issue: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..842a475290d 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -797,6 +797,17 @@ package-built-in-p (require 'finder-inf nil t) ; For `package--builtins'. (assq package package--builtins)))))) +(defun package--upgradable-built-in-p (package) + "Return non-nil if PACKAGE if the built-in version is used." + (and (not (assq (cond + ((package-desc-p package) + (package-desc-name package)) + ((stringp package) (intern package)) + ((symbolp package) package) + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) + (package--alist))) + (package-built-in-p package))) + (defun package--autoloads-file-name (pkg-desc) "Return the absolute name of the autoloads file, sans extension. PKG-DESC is a `package-desc' object." @@ -2187,7 +2198,9 @@ package-install "Install the package PKG. PKG can be a `package-desc' or a symbol naming one of the available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. When -called interactively, prompt for the package name. +called interactively, prompt for the package name. When invoked +with a prefix argument, the prompt will include built-in packages +that can be upgraded via an archive. Mark the installed package as selected by adding it to `package-selected-packages'. @@ -2205,11 +2218,13 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (and (or (and current-prefix-arg + (package--upgradable-built-in-p (car elt))) + (not (package-installed-p (car elt)))) + (list (car elt)))) + package-archive-contents) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) @@ -2220,6 +2235,8 @@ package-install (unless (or dont-select (package--user-selected-p name)) (package--save-selected-packages (cons name package-selected-packages))) + (when (package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg) + (setq pkg (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) (if-let* ((transaction (if (package-desc-p pkg) (unless (package-installed-p pkg) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain This relies on the fact that package-install handles package descriptor objects in a different way than when you just call the function with a package name. This would also mean that an alternative solution to this issue would be to tell users to evaluate (package-install (cadr (assq 'eglot package-archive-contents))) but I don't know how user-friendly of an idea this is. --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 11:55:46 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 15:55:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44482 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmzIX-0008Hn-5c for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:55:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57336) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmzIH-0008HC-Ds for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:55:41 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmzIA-0006bV-AM; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:55:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=lYSJS4nuocBuJaI0bd9KgyDCVsyR1j3rRFHV1q6wxKA=; b=l/2Q3niD6DZaIz/8Xlrk Pj6/09panl81eIwhhFRFqOynOAcoSgOggiNDZtr2q/a7I6b2HfOjsfnWbh1d8fq2imM/O4T0zgePW E1vlwcQ8rbhXHIBqMncsvw9kGaU7UqPr7qNlup2Doy/4o4rL9GSKIvvIrv2FolLDbQ9yi/SQ2zci9 2TbPYTuz5Vpwn1c/Z4pDWtEZfPg/3Bn8cnQsToHGQ/A97myDTKNbGbKUnWdfUimDJBkn4Dqsl3/1W XfGyYJOIra84tkf6CWoc7hu3JdpmuZF5DjnbBuh+rXR++ETK8zPk3St/QBe7RvQB9fEmtH5Si3+9/ mP6OfvXJOiGLvQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmzI9-0007Vd-Qd; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:55:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:56:08 +0300 Message-Id: <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:10:01 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:10:01 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> The issue here is that this breaks the non-interactive invocations like > >> (package-install 'eglot), unless they invoke the function while binding > >> `current-prefix-arg', which I don't think is a common practice. > > > > Then let's add another optional argument, and let prefix arg set it. > > Would that resolve this issue? > > That could solve it, but a user option might be more elegant. We could > set it to nil for now, and change it to non-nil for the next release. Adding an option is fine by me, as long as its default preserves previous behavior. Just to be sure we are on the same page: you suggest _both_ prefix argument and user option, where user option could be used to avoid the need for prefix argument? > >> >> Note that (package-install 'eglot) does download code, but I believe > >> >> that this is the correct approach and would align with what João > >> >> wanted. > >> > > >> > I'm not sure I follow: which code does the above download? > >> > >> I did not change any of the code that downloads anything, all this does > >> is prompt the user for built-in packages when invoked interactively with > >> a prefix argument and if package-install is invoked with a built-in > >> package, then it will switch to the ELPA version. This will not happen > >> in interactive usage, since `completing-read' is called with > >> REQUIRE-MATCH. > > > > So you are saying that non-interactive calls to package-install could > > install Eglot from ELPA even without the changes, is that right? > > No, my proposed diff changes what package decides to download (the > planning phase), but doesn't touch anything after that. The current > state is that (package-install 'eglot) just prints > > ‘eglot’ is already installed And does nothing else? You seem to be saying it still downloads something, but what is that? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 11:58:32 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 15:58:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44496 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmzLE-0008MY-0d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:58:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44946) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmzLB-0008ML-Tz for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:58:30 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmzL6-0007Oo-Hm; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:58:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=6WdP5ENss8LUK4r3xG0Mi5fN8CeTPQ5+Bk0L4al1bZw=; b=ORNVzuMwseJB G5lbI2yI34W1kxzOl/fp4cn7V1E3hOKCHlszL02KgVuz9CCq7fbQ3bcbYUw3Z+FhqQgH1PY9QDZ6t tutEqWS4PouP+bAPV07ftu4wL/R2rq4CNTKX0biJB7iD7NjwlfmC3TESOWxwtMRL5n6lqVvLPaLdU y47Yl/9rH78iNfJkncAzy9edJamZZSNmQ8sYZK3d7EPmqoJOtUD0VwSJNfVmmtamTruvxuhN1JrRx oaH3if8i3PCYp2hjoTfwrqF88aTnLClbi3stqK/NuDxnEV5EJUFRenoYJE+BXvgNkxa0L4/CGoKaW aK5pGKNAI6F9L0fZh2JnFQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmzL5-0003RU-JE; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:58:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:59:12 +0300 Message-Id: <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:14:51 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:14:51 +0000 > > > I have found an alternative that doesn't change the way > > `package-compute-transaction' works, but requires a small change in > > `package-install': > > I have found a smaller but equivalent change that would also solve the > issue: Are we still sure we want to change package-install, not package-upgrade? AFAIU, there were several voices that preferred the latter, with the rationale that a built-in package is always "installed", so "installing" it makes little or no sense. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 12:14:10 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 16:14:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44517 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmzaM-0000Ku-H9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:14:10 -0400 Received: from wnew1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.26]:48109) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmzaI-0000KF-L1 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:14:09 -0400 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FCE2B068D5; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:14:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681402440; x=1681406040; bh=6FoiXAf3vb3bmB2Y8RXjpYBK5sMBTI+O+Di 5xVmfKkc=; b=S2FanXgXp9dg6k4hXYNvYYZ3Tv/g+6mB4Q8nSfrwYKtjs8IF8wn KgiljkTGtSOb75y6+gSD6dPpvWaWFBHWhXMBXwdOMdfAy3P3dpcY8JLrwSiP7nJZ ybr9RPB2k4MbgtJDcXUlbwM6N1PhRZxx784ncn6TwGvj/shOqISC4T4D9fD0KRKe ZpieAIOrKrnwwvP8kLfv3l/bd0ZAt3DGZoaFlBRL7OQTx/aQ7v0LMKHmvyw5j/zk vFquz+cMQKzEN7hXyejvgNgcM4si5T0cvlZW3Mu9widBwaqVy/UJ15fnbaxNrIyO qVy7xbfGA+2ix3NUPSYMqERJKALOitzgslg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681402440; x=1681406040; bh=6FoiXAf3vb3bmB2Y8RXjpYBK5sMBTI+O+Di 5xVmfKkc=; b=C+hQ8AQvCai15HAsZRcpqvn1WOIlXVaJ5FB8KKdr1+M/rV9moXX ugbIp2oPRuheYMi0B9LFjEN3L4lmUEgVVLfFUIK8Lng5s+30uhdxStcOD+68Xpu/ eAheohaiNfLxUcDzDBsMB1kVMn0wdmG1SOwbQBGcw/sZtBUP4dRQ03sg65EjRKPc xa612SuGMFv07BP0whImH+3fvcK+iB5PpIRYGtWxSIoo+3U8LHXzwRAvFGIkW89J MbAMkrFjAQSi5ZYmLjBzHoaMv8Tf8MkdEI1QrDjk8jZ/qKf7NDaaS6tPR828BdM+ zApiLoEojFTVCABS9JqDPj3FnrJUdu0nYcA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdekkedgleelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:13:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <91f458df-ed98-e851-df4a-7d2d9bbcea7d@gutov.dev> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:13:56 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii , Philip Kaludercic References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.1 (--) On 13/04/2023 18:59, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc:joaotavora@gmail.com,monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:14:51 +0000 >> >>> I have found an alternative that doesn't change the way >>> `package-compute-transaction' works, but requires a small change in >>> `package-install': >> I have found a smaller but equivalent change that would also solve the >> issue: > Are we still sure we want to change package-install, not > package-upgrade? AFAIU, there were several voices that preferred the > latter, with the rationale that a built-in package is always > "installed", so "installing" it makes little or no sense. Note that this notion would probably go better together with changing package-install's behavior to never update, for any packages that are already installed. That would make it consistent, but it's also a breaking change. So I really just mentioned it as a weak justification for not fixing package-install just now (so we'd make the decision about it later). Where the main cause for (not) doing that was your reticence for changing it this late in the cycle. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 12:59:47 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 16:59:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44601 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pn0IU-0004DV-LG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:59:46 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:31783) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pn0IS-0004DG-Jb for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:59:45 -0400 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 437248091E; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 090F88041E; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:59:38 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1681405178; bh=C/l2kFPSync1ynnHZKzEZ7qZ0FJsfTA/4rqtEsJABNk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=P3uCU91gwU1uWB117Q6HzOyrHOg86QBRYLacREN3I9SPgMIauQrpXJ2Lv0pmtyTjM FbuCwDZWp4eq6+OTx7YTY2hY3z1h7eYr1AtzxlK2xIMg0zuQbOwm4PvozVO0FcEEX5 LndvsM2jf8yKjJwW5agpM6PzV+Q3UP4xs1EeXUXq50h9+aiktdR12Yt2NoIW4oDh2L hsWk3DFdShmY5mDqHura7O4TLDmW2qZlpmGoeqmmWLHIG0viyXAI8IdzFa7JaEnlRi 3tazyEphIgvw0Tbk4siwtKJCMfk44io4nlnOmTwvyrORaLqWcdRjwILoA9pej7bj3v ntXv5KGOhXXag== Received: from alfajor (unknown [45.44.229.252]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C870A120329; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:59:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Philip Kaludercic Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:23:12 +0000") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:59:36 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.068 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) >> Why did the original code use symbol-name, but the new one doesn't? > To my knowledge, completing-read given a collection of symbols will use > the symbol names as candidates, or is this more complicated? It mostly works. Strictly speaking a completion table can be either: - a list of strings - an alist whose keys are either strings or symbols and the code handles those two cases together so a list of symbols tend to work just as well, but if your first symbol happens to be `lambda` or `closure`, you're out of luck. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 13:48:42 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 17:48:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44726 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pn13q-0005kP-FC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:48:42 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:47089) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pn13m-0005k1-Ao for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:48:40 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 600882402CC for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:48:32 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681408112; bh=usGnlNkil8VH20nSNMBGV0KjCHHi5xvAGU93O2tjAdw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=da5Q9Mr8NXxddKNLij5N4E3RwLDH+RgXQuC7ppYTXr/FlWZtBKzSm3PEUfC4LsJ6D kxqIgJk9jUuPZltWc/R56i+y60yo9LbDEEufRL3f7z2KTEpO9Cjs0sfe0PkmIy02wV 0nzUfhK548joqwmM/eDw+5qD1BPsQYYgSAHW+qXAv6SF+JaLnrAqvrB9o0rM6Cdpe4 /WhGnTHlE3Azs0GbGFURbAQzJRc2rwndRJn4dHNbH4mSGg4KYnii1SZuz+krEGXpGI FOxpRjow3D0hgpF3Hs8DpdnPL7s/JHxqnqrFeW34M7Y+q31DrY/YqLM5t2O9F0dnzt FkIcZePLvzvOQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Py6WM2FFlz9rxG; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:48:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:56:08 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:49:00 +0000 Message-ID: <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.= org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:10:01 +0000 >>=20 >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >>=20 >> >> The issue here is that this breaks the non-interactive invocations li= ke >> >> (package-install 'eglot), unless they invoke the function while bindi= ng >> >> `current-prefix-arg', which I don't think is a common practice. >> > >> > Then let's add another optional argument, and let prefix arg set it. >> > Would that resolve this issue? >>=20 >> That could solve it, but a user option might be more elegant. We could >> set it to nil for now, and change it to non-nil for the next release. > > Adding an option is fine by me, as long as its default preserves > previous behavior. > > Just to be sure we are on the same page: you suggest _both_ prefix > argument and user option, where user option could be used to avoid the > need for prefix argument? I was thinking about both, but I supposed that a user option would be enough. >> >> >> Note that (package-install 'eglot) does download code, but I belie= ve >> >> >> that this is the correct approach and would align with what Jo=C3= =A3o >> >> >> wanted. >> >> > >> >> > I'm not sure I follow: which code does the above download? >> >>=20 >> >> I did not change any of the code that downloads anything, all this do= es >> >> is prompt the user for built-in packages when invoked interactively w= ith >> >> a prefix argument and if package-install is invoked with a built-in >> >> package, then it will switch to the ELPA version. This will not happ= en >> >> in interactive usage, since `completing-read' is called with >> >> REQUIRE-MATCH. >> > >> > So you are saying that non-interactive calls to package-install could >> > install Eglot from ELPA even without the changes, is that right? >>=20 >> No, my proposed diff changes what package decides to download (the >> planning phase), but doesn't touch anything after that. The current >> state is that (package-install 'eglot) just prints >>=20 >> =E2=80=98eglot=E2=80=99 is already installed > > And does nothing else? You seem to be saying it still downloads > something, but what is that? No, it just prints that message but doesn't download anything. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 14:14:56 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 18:14:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44748 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pn1T2-0006Zm-Aw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:14:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50576) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pn1Sw-0006ZW-E4 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:14:42 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pn1Sp-0004GU-5Z; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:14:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=ChjPpP1cCotuQSIeJNyVWcrCwgd8k91fbULg7BgXQyA=; b=K6iHUCJG2w9/n+oB+X/p LBIcE9c2cUNeRl0t+IwIb0+fq9KJWVY1wPLBbK/apsKA3lTdebiKHAD1V7piPPSYCX/Z5UOVTWab9 USt5kpvntdqaCcNm4IuR+XR1YDEa/nHxY464knu0bibTyBXUrakVwshLoDsi3QmiK3eU/H3c35HYq 1j3bNABfd/Et1jwrRcVZzVNNtEzuWiEcVFChPqmOL/bzXmApf2n5Rh3Qo0tkH/NVeBHhutCy+vyCD dSNTlBQldlaasnG8lz9CtGbxu2vOIsXkTlH3c2C+Vx6oVLPyOqDzOvx3KaGEc8lTUwhp1JqCAuA/j G1ox4FqseRhvaA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pn1Sn-0005vK-Nl; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:14:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:15:16 +0300 Message-Id: <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:49:00 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:49:00 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Adding an option is fine by me, as long as its default preserves > > previous behavior. > > > > Just to be sure we are on the same page: you suggest _both_ prefix > > argument and user option, where user option could be used to avoid the > > need for prefix argument? > > I was thinking about both, but I supposed that a user option would be > enough. No, I think having both is better. It is easier to say "C-u" than to change the value of an option, so for one-off update of a single package, the prefix argument is more convenient. > >> No, my proposed diff changes what package decides to download (the > >> planning phase), but doesn't touch anything after that. The current > >> state is that (package-install 'eglot) just prints > >> > >> ‘eglot’ is already installed > > > > And does nothing else? You seem to be saying it still downloads > > something, but what is that? > > No, it just prints that message but doesn't download anything. OK, then allowing to install such packages under the proposed changes will improve that case as well. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 14:48:46 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 18:48:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44777 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pn1zx-0007XE-Oc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:48:46 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:56615) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pn1zu-0007Wx-VW for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:48:44 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 161912402A8 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 20:48:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681411717; bh=kdFKmeWcQV1KaD/PlGAeI24zH2WdzLq1bXOm8R1VNNg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=M2TkKLy3FF48nSilEPizp8/gFVFYjTnHoB4+ulq02DQc/bt4IM5eDUGWqaJucRK0p WusF5kefCtwUfycwIXV8P74U6aW4UsxcjYRrOlTuYd4mtOAA19ks7vO8LPMlvswxV2 Oa/7vOsXoV3RwsAEW5ZmYE1qHc5kFKNiNmZJ+i1PFHRdQ8DwTtIJYXFKX55JPxlgac 5PhDP0RSoEOVq8JC4z2vwOg9CuiUddRE7ALAZ3hYjbla5JSChqSk2X4i9NqaRQ1Fdd H9SL7HpxJj3rEoCBaCP1RRdIPQKkbSucd5SGix2T7sJK8wCptmI0+mVDAJPOf30GCu v2Xavac9YZCVA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Py7rg6MKMz9rxM; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 20:48:35 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:15:16 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:49:05 +0000 Message-ID: <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.= org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:49:00 +0000 >>=20 >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >>=20 >> > Adding an option is fine by me, as long as its default preserves >> > previous behavior. >> > >> > Just to be sure we are on the same page: you suggest _both_ prefix >> > argument and user option, where user option could be used to avoid the >> > need for prefix argument? >>=20 >> I was thinking about both, but I supposed that a user option would be >> enough. > > No, I think having both is better. It is easier to say "C-u" than to > change the value of an option, so for one-off update of a single > package, the prefix argument is more convenient. > >> >> No, my proposed diff changes what package decides to download (the >> >> planning phase), but doesn't touch anything after that. The current >> >> state is that (package-install 'eglot) just prints >> >>=20 >> >> =E2=80=98eglot=E2=80=99 is already installed >> > >> > And does nothing else? You seem to be saying it still downloads >> > something, but what is that? >>=20 >> No, it just prints that message but doesn't download anything. > > OK, then allowing to install such packages under the proposed changes > will improve that case as well. After having added the user option, I am not sure about the prefix argument. I see this as a temporary fix due to the time constraints of releasing Emacs 29. It is disabled for now, but can be enabled on master to see if there are any problems. But for now, this patch supports both the user option and the prefix argument. I am still not satisfied with the documentation, but cannot come up with a better phrase than installing potentially newer versions of built-in packages from package archives for explaining the issue without getting too technical. Do you have any ideas? --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-Allow-upgrading-built-in-packages-with-package-insta.patch >From 99e92d78560ef1aec7217d90ed3a8108bdf2924c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Philip Kaludercic Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 20:13:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Allow upgrading built-in packages with 'package-install' * etc/NEWS: Mention the change * lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el (package--upgradable-built-in-p): Add new predicate. (package-install-upgrade-built-in): Add new user option to enable feature. (package-install): Respect new user option. --- etc/NEWS | 5 +++++ lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS index 84dbb94a71a..a7834cd0d2b 100644 --- a/etc/NEWS +++ b/etc/NEWS @@ -1876,6 +1876,11 @@ package maintainers. By customizing this user option you can specify specific packages to install. +--- +*** New user option 'package-install-upgrade-built-in'. +When enabled, 'package-install' can be used to install potentially +newer versions of built-in packages. + ** Emacs Sessions (Desktop) +++ diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..882db8db719 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -797,6 +797,17 @@ package-built-in-p (require 'finder-inf nil t) ; For `package--builtins'. (assq package package--builtins)))))) +(defun package--active-built-in-p (package) + "Return non-nil if PACKAGE if the built-in version is used." + (and (not (assq (cond + ((package-desc-p package) + (package-desc-name package)) + ((stringp package) (intern package)) + ((symbolp package) package) + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) + (package--alist))) + (package-built-in-p package))) + (defun package--autoloads-file-name (pkg-desc) "Return the absolute name of the autoloads file, sans extension. PKG-DESC is a `package-desc' object." @@ -2182,12 +2193,19 @@ package--archives-initialize (unless package-archive-contents (package-refresh-contents))) +(defcustom package-install-upgrade-built-in nil + "Non-nil means that built-in packages can be upgraded via a package archive. +If disabled, then `package-install' will not allow installing +potentially newer versions of built-in packages from package +archives." + :type 'boolean + :version "29.1") + ;;;###autoload (defun package-install (pkg &optional dont-select) "Install the package PKG. PKG can be a `package-desc' or a symbol naming one of the -available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. When -called interactively, prompt for the package name. +available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. Mark the installed package as selected by adding it to `package-selected-packages'. @@ -2197,7 +2215,11 @@ package-install `package-selected-packages'. If PKG is a `package-desc' and it is already installed, don't try -to install it but still mark it as selected." +to install it but still mark it as selected. + +If the command is invoked with a prefix argument, the upgrading +of built-in packages will be possible, as if +`package-install-upgrade-built-in' had been enabled." (interactive (progn ;; Initialize the package system to get the list of package @@ -2205,11 +2227,14 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (and (or (and (or current-prefix-arg + package-install-upgrade-built-in) + (package--active-built-in-p (car elt))) + (not (package-installed-p (car elt)))) + (list (symbol-name (car elt))))) + package-archive-contents) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) @@ -2220,6 +2245,9 @@ package-install (unless (or dont-select (package--user-selected-p name)) (package--save-selected-packages (cons name package-selected-packages))) + (when (and (or current-prefix-arg package-install-upgrade-built-in) + (package--active-built-in-p pkg)) + (setq pkg (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) (if-let* ((transaction (if (package-desc-p pkg) (unless (package-installed-p pkg) -- 2.39.2 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 13 15:14:22 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 19:14:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44795 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pn2Oj-0008Kz-Ga for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:14:22 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:35235) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pn2Od-0008Kg-DE for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:14:19 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731AD2402A7 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:14:09 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681413249; bh=I2Qd8G8iLbQjrA7jmtIwrkelhjhVHei2a/h5SwOEmPc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=FZNkRV6CKCHqVucfvm6g/DSaou+A4EYdRjmPerTK1B2S9Mmol/Vu19WqIzHmANs9W n5RkRAwfUxuJjKLV8wKKea9llt0jPeGDeDo/a3A50Mf5nSeSolcNuiahBV/IuiR79x 3JKMlTm55ZkOrnRY71THstaLZnYS3zShkpuSWTyN22D75/OWPICaa2vz00AQYFS+jg 1sTziI2IB2C/WH2BV4qnCC28GYvfbroY7uesYJ3DWaY9mYOeTnpEyLBoDgeXf5k496 F2jeEzcEpNtRiWkwa672hIC3KKkIGWU0R1ZLDJg5pYLqs085zdZNG0yT3Iu5mjBbcr Z4y/AXAFG4QsQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Py8Q82Q8gz6twB; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:14:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:59:12 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:14:37 +0000 Message-ID: <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:14:51 +0000 >> >> > I have found an alternative that doesn't change the way >> > `package-compute-transaction' works, but requires a small change in >> > `package-install': >> >> I have found a smaller but equivalent change that would also solve the >> issue: > > Are we still sure we want to change package-install, not > package-upgrade? AFAIU, there were several voices that preferred the > latter, with the rationale that a built-in package is always > "installed", so "installing" it makes little or no sense. If you want that, here is one proposal. Should be the smallest so far: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-Allow-upgrading-built-in-packages-with-package-insta.patch >From 99e92d78560ef1aec7217d90ed3a8108bdf2924c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Philip Kaludercic Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 20:13:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Allow upgrading built-in packages with 'package-install' * etc/NEWS: Mention the change * lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el (package--upgradable-built-in-p): Add new predicate. (package-install-upgrade-built-in): Add new user option to enable feature. (package-install): Respect new user option. --- etc/NEWS | 5 +++++ lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS index 84dbb94a71a..a7834cd0d2b 100644 --- a/etc/NEWS +++ b/etc/NEWS @@ -1876,6 +1876,11 @@ package maintainers. By customizing this user option you can specify specific packages to install. +--- +*** New user option 'package-install-upgrade-built-in'. +When enabled, 'package-install' can be used to install potentially +newer versions of built-in packages. + ** Emacs Sessions (Desktop) +++ diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..882db8db719 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -797,6 +797,17 @@ package-built-in-p (require 'finder-inf nil t) ; For `package--builtins'. (assq package package--builtins)))))) +(defun package--active-built-in-p (package) + "Return non-nil if PACKAGE if the built-in version is used." + (and (not (assq (cond + ((package-desc-p package) + (package-desc-name package)) + ((stringp package) (intern package)) + ((symbolp package) package) + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) + (package--alist))) + (package-built-in-p package))) + (defun package--autoloads-file-name (pkg-desc) "Return the absolute name of the autoloads file, sans extension. PKG-DESC is a `package-desc' object." @@ -2182,12 +2193,19 @@ package--archives-initialize (unless package-archive-contents (package-refresh-contents))) +(defcustom package-install-upgrade-built-in nil + "Non-nil means that built-in packages can be upgraded via a package archive. +If disabled, then `package-install' will not allow installing +potentially newer versions of built-in packages from package +archives." + :type 'boolean + :version "29.1") + ;;;###autoload (defun package-install (pkg &optional dont-select) "Install the package PKG. PKG can be a `package-desc' or a symbol naming one of the -available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. When -called interactively, prompt for the package name. +available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. Mark the installed package as selected by adding it to `package-selected-packages'. @@ -2197,7 +2215,11 @@ package-install `package-selected-packages'. If PKG is a `package-desc' and it is already installed, don't try -to install it but still mark it as selected." +to install it but still mark it as selected. + +If the command is invoked with a prefix argument, the upgrading +of built-in packages will be possible, as if +`package-install-upgrade-built-in' had been enabled." (interactive (progn ;; Initialize the package system to get the list of package @@ -2205,11 +2227,14 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (and (or (and (or current-prefix-arg + package-install-upgrade-built-in) + (package--active-built-in-p (car elt))) + (not (package-installed-p (car elt)))) + (list (symbol-name (car elt))))) + package-archive-contents) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) @@ -2220,6 +2245,9 @@ package-install (unless (or dont-select (package--user-selected-p name)) (package--save-selected-packages (cons name package-selected-packages))) + (when (and (or current-prefix-arg package-install-upgrade-built-in) + (package--active-built-in-p pkg)) + (setq pkg (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) (if-let* ((transaction (if (package-desc-p pkg) (unless (package-installed-p pkg) -- 2.39.2 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 06:54:30 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 10:54:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45652 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnH4X-00023Q-Pq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:54:30 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54054) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnH4T-000235-4s for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:54:28 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnH4K-0000D5-Lo; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:54:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=0jAOqqS9gAI1owhCPYSnpl64dHI04UByzA1/RnKb4JI=; b=KuoPFm7XKXUS +7X8S9fGX9lyLuAWp8/4Y4/i9v84RUtqPll4ci9uN61FHRijC2WkEKqfyH6KxoFKljXyk4cCATvb4 +ieHoBS5hfw+9lRX6oOxTu9z+Pgvfk0RZMbZDhVV4XQKCkJVrzubCKpk/cfmcBX+Qdc51ksHOoOIH E6nWnUAWOPhiCyW/TCGIQIGHNmdNkULInE2X3K1yBnr3qCvhc/n+O0TdwQM0R5YgHuBeErx6S6avl i4fwwWGHg9OiRWc8RjHRbhsDdyBbUIoKoGjAq/e1oD9Uv1wkc8NtSgQtPHtvdVcRSr8r4kU31x4E9 JqaOh9/vfLzMcaXWu19glQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnH4J-0003YL-58; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:54:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:54:11 +0300 Message-Id: <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:49:05 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:49:05 +0000 > > After having added the user option, I am not sure about the prefix > argument. I see this as a temporary fix due to the time constraints of > releasing Emacs 29. It is disabled for now, but can be enabled on > master to see if there are any problems. Yes, we can change the default to t on master. But that would also require to adjust a few doc strings, see below. > But for now, this patch supports both the user option and the prefix > argument. I am still not satisfied with the documentation, but cannot > come up with a better phrase than > > installing potentially newer versions of built-in packages from > package archives > > for explaining the issue without getting too technical. Do you have any > ideas? See below. > +*** New user option 'package-install-upgrade-built-in'. > +When enabled, 'package-install' can be used to install potentially > +newer versions of built-in packages. I suggest When enabled, 'package-install' will include in the list of upgradeable packages those built-in packages (like Eglot, for example) for which a newer version is available on GNU ELPA. By default, this is disabled; however, if 'package-install' is invoked with prefix argument, it will also include built-in packages in the list of packages which could be upgraded. > +(defcustom package-install-upgrade-built-in nil > + "Non-nil means that built-in packages can be upgraded via a package archive. > +If disabled, then `package-install' will not allow installing > +potentially newer versions of built-in packages from package > +archives." The last sentence should be qualified by "...unless invoked with a prefix argument". Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 06:57:16 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 10:57:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45663 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnH7D-0002GD-M0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:57:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40034) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnH71-0002FX-LA for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:57:13 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnH6v-0000zh-3M; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:56:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=QmgjD2a7ByKjGy82QxYXHWV79KCm8jjQNC4yo/2/D0s=; b=TpFcoXLP2+Ai DCIhLkUW2BuvaegMmAfw2ifploJkIQoaeL8PacGjanZeaa0WpFqsKZlSMU8M6KvyVW0dKkLgNY+qu 1FIUQQUz4+P/haJI5b36VUTY6fNgLIEZAbADjh7MTFygOZBO4UGnK74E3TkBqomen++eiTQs4vaF8 uczh/3ie2hGFo3FtNqecZQgVwY4wyBRmeX+YEqPLWH19C2raVnh5SjpQM2481QY+k1VHj6jaU6sgt S4yalbwxM5Zdkd7iLyEeEr+Y8agYdLVOspo8Hlt18eWexDnLPHFO9xJoVa8ASBrdoc57/VIj3AUAn NikVCQNp8LbYKVpZ9n35FQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnH6o-00049l-VY; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:56:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:56:49 +0300 Message-Id: <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:14:37 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:14:37 +0000 > > > Are we still sure we want to change package-install, not > > package-upgrade? AFAIU, there were several voices that preferred the > > latter, with the rationale that a built-in package is always > > "installed", so "installing" it makes little or no sense. > > If you want that, here is one proposal. Should be the smallest so far: Hmm... looks identical to the previous patch you sent, which changes package-install? Or what am I missing? As for the question I asked: I'm okay with changing package-install if there are no objections from those who proposed to change package-upgrade instead. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 08:34:26 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 12:34:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45786 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnIdG-0007YI-8s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:34:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f54.google.com ([209.85.221.54]:40539) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnIdE-0007Y6-Eg for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:34:24 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f54.google.com with SMTP id s2so14066868wra.7 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 05:34:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681475658; x=1684067658; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=ACYOjTO7Jj3KcAOvyDZIfMJQSkn2GK68+WvD1P+sE2o=; b=QJRRVaY0rZCZkMrFMgx7iMTXs0a/4C8YtwrUcHuYH+WuFoPPJPO7FPlaXP/2Kokqi6 yuofccKAGxdIVvnz5p6lo+uRK3YgBuF84nWJlGoTkEn3pR2PT9mIycggxTwmDe3H8ZJu KGLZNb8L6gjM0n2AHi2kGsQF/6eBrF9byXK4sRS7i58mvplzNTklrGRC/1iKm7c/5L4N wKkUxDf8iqgBz6zygq1/x9xJyImTk83wNEhc+0RGKCQAiApAGdU2qjWbaCre2rORvR3N ig3wMqgoSsk/xRT8IVfggJxXj+Vqn7laOO7EkLTDH8zWogXnL9QAj/VCQr5MWGlYXfj7 IWGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681475658; x=1684067658; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ACYOjTO7Jj3KcAOvyDZIfMJQSkn2GK68+WvD1P+sE2o=; b=VHcE5bRaNsvdONyRErouKZmfwY5Yukul0wCKS7WV+jBHYK5eWVs9xd9EoX5S5LV6Y0 LSo+/tpB7i9Yy/wMckn9w7XSMHOcmKRUASsLwQjjWysz7Kn2NTZPhlme0E1WpNWMxHEh 1iuYOBBogEWtlXRsCd/OfwTcmgwLKtA3VJFjWj5hIANN0m3J0w9YfHMz07pr/nuH8UL1 wVfVAM2jEWYdu5j1jql9gOUMlIvsisVxxj+AFd8foDCaTws/A/doSfhekLG4p2xNfPs4 01QNmY7gJiJj+LqWBVE7s0uaVDiBPjwT/FJr+BEIcSe+C1v9F5Ee/ZCfZoo3A/rGSPog 8ATQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eypKEP0IiCD07BXSWb2SCwBAqEPTSkCrk9RvMZxF2hoYniKvn7 GkjDCOr29jOBCFDF3jeG4RI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZUx8GJqVDZGZ+GZo7SOfe0QT/522LlaHGuH/NvHTKw1g9xwfBmX0MhovfibIpI6mwKDms0Xg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:538d:0:b0:2f0:dfd4:7f49 with SMTP id d13-20020a5d538d000000b002f0dfd47f49mr4255872wrv.26.1681475658215; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 05:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rltb ([82.66.8.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u13-20020a05600c00cd00b003edf2dc7ca3sm4173593wmm.34.2023.04.14.05.34.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 05:34:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Pluim To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:54:11 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:34:16 +0200 Message-ID: <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com 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 (-) >>>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:54:11 +0300, Eli Zaretskii said: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.= gnu.org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:49:05 +0000 >>=20 >> After having added the user option, I am not sure about the prefix >> argument. I see this as a temporary fix due to the time constraints= of >> releasing Emacs 29. It is disabled for now, but can be enabled on >> master to see if there are any problems. Eli> Yes, we can change the default to t on master. But that would also Eli> require to adjust a few doc strings, see below. So on master if I upgrade all packages, ':core' packages would be automatically upgraded as well? I strongly object to that as a default; just because there=CA=BCs a newer version on elpa of a :core package doesn=CA=BCt mean emacs should upgrade to it unless *explicitly* told to do so. Robert --=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 08:56:25 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 12:56:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45810 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnIyW-00085t-Hf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:56:25 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f171.google.com ([209.85.167.171]:41868) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnIyT-00085d-T5 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:56:22 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f171.google.com with SMTP id ec6so5230034oib.8 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 05:56:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681476976; x=1684068976; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=crUrfkyM+hLoYDwW68yZ0sUp9nlXVgnn2VTEFPjd5S0=; b=g+kOiKlIMw/sS6ujtw4MjNWSRH+MbkTve9hQo3+viEf9IiBs8N8vBAbVXkHEK5tqG5 4+3IqmBAONWqk8BObWw8ssDY+MdNfn4Aoe7+ld6+whnmyO91QvXN6f2OjatPAeytT+Ys jhFZEiTgai9W7A+qTXOm/G5DQPMys8vPnHsnf/d/Z8mStxxSdHKxGsaV3pD0YEJZW+oL Dl275gDMxLo7uYxWJt/ME2fEoCGLwwPTwpOopL2mXnVG1i/ZhkfAHwTNJXMX6aaDSdHu cSTMSZlIA1W1CCT+3heQQX/I4AduOqCvA8+z+LxRqO8y1+DHVlLhkO5zLV7Ih6XPx6Tv aZ/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681476976; x=1684068976; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=crUrfkyM+hLoYDwW68yZ0sUp9nlXVgnn2VTEFPjd5S0=; b=hmZ2eS9/7Bqjyob3rQDEjhtG9ivXc4MuFkAgnOotVtYLuVk8uJlvH2n56lEc9YhUQZ ehVMn4Ewh4eh3v+hzJZKI2tsEejlTw1cy/8yVCFwprLc1OVXAOgDYzgFo/bd73NhNuw9 M9fi+XKsbumPhQqpg1Vbzg5p6K+Y9AUxJ552NDhvzVd0SeA8zrR8m+zxmAX64cbWQPY0 ZC1LsATav4mBXc8OQEQKZdJd+Rs9TdivlH8uhB9hyVpKH8R1ZE4Z1G1TjslYohXkerGQ KojKpbxh1nKt9slF17ypL35ZTAMwRhUF4VF8D38WE8Wk5iyf8ivv5ylYLS51ebZlBMUI 0RuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9d3faV/z8p8iAFLhuzWbz4nKxfKOmnTss9G+Iw5ICr6z/V9UQLo zmu0ufvSUu1cm31tN/++dWgX51gCcyzcFZpwIdE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZogHkLFNHLDL9VFHLHICTM0Q3fjI+wbcILFH6M90lT96+eWrmjC7D6hSPY/lIu3OCxKNvuGbviUhvMfNzZuHI= X-Received: by 2002:aca:111a:0:b0:386:e7e7:d93d with SMTP id 26-20020aca111a000000b00386e7e7d93dmr1276284oir.5.1681476975913; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:56:05 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Robert Pluim Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii , Philip Kaludercic , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 1:34=E2=80=AFPM Robert Pluim wro= te: > So on master if I upgrade all packages, ':core' packages would be > automatically upgraded as well? By definition, all :core packages in master are already at their newest version. > I strongly object to that as a > default; just because there=CA=BCs a newer version on elpa of a :core I really planned to sit this one out, but I'd like to make sure people understand the implications of what they're asking for. On Emacs 26, 27, 28 if the user has (package-install 'some-package-now-in-core) in her configuration, it gets upgraded to the most recent version there is. In subsequent forms, the config can start doing stuff with the variables and definitions in 'some-package-now-in-core', etc. And the user can enjoy the newest features and bugfixes. On Emacs 29 and later, the very same config will do nothing and even probably/possibly break with an error. Furthermore, the subtle problem will grow more serious and bizarre as time goes on and "some-package-now-in-core" evolves. It might not break for users who upgrade to 29 next month and break for users who upgrade to 29 in 6 months' time, because "some-package-now-in-core" will have evolved significantly. > package doesn=CA=BCt mean emacs should upgrade to it unless *explicitly* > told to do so. I really don't understand why M-x package-install RET RET isn't explicit enough. But I guess a a confirmation prompt could be logical. I haven't followed all mails, maybe someone has proposed that? As for non-interactive package-install, I guess that finding an explicit `package-install` somewhere in the configuration is reason enough to assume that the user meant for it to have the meaning and effect it has always had before she upgraded to a version where the same package happens to be in :core, and that meaning is "upgrade to the newest". Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 09:40:35 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 13:40:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45834 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnJfH-0003Hx-7X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:40:35 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39992) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnJfB-0003Ha-VX for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:40:33 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnJf5-0006v1-Fq; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:40:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=RiQ1GmD/q1CQk88AgmlN1mE261zpNNaoku0ZBMEHTtE=; b=U8M9b9pwA5wr6Q1GBAt2 11XGNXJIPXBY8pv9TbxftzmxJnvBQBVrPbg2udzpNwaxkKVs286MJoOwquElYF78jF7H6jh8Aq8P/ dXyTV9gIzi7edeOZMdfeFcVfP38WR2UHFhzvFoJB61UQ1ibiSu1hrfukTQC1ErkZXY0TE1JQ068yO dXL3HGclClrW1ORKrBxf37iqCCE/+fpwlMvOFMD9kUorklL3eCGHBL5i4iXyTvMdgsm7644e5wZ8P pILmcLmLJSLfHxPM5kMW+tw17cHThD8fF0wh2xLZI0PPPUnA/mH40vZJnnhXySKjOPOI1ZjbbYkhB G7kLbK1/nxyEKw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnJes-0000RV-U8; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:40:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:40:06 +0300 Message-Id: <83jzyefuq1.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Robert Pluim In-Reply-To: <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Robert Pluim on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:34:16 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Robert Pluim > Cc: Philip Kaludercic , larsi@gnus.org, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:34:16 +0200 > > >>>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:54:11 +0300, Eli Zaretskii said: > > Eli> Yes, we can change the default to t on master. But that would also > Eli> require to adjust a few doc strings, see below. > > So on master if I upgrade all packages, ':core' packages would be > automatically upgraded as well? is that what the default of that option means? > I strongly object to that as a default; just because thereʼs a newer > version on elpa of a :core package doesnʼt mean emacs should upgrade > to it unless *explicitly* told to do so. I said we _can_ change the default; I didn't say we _must_. If enough people object to making that the default, it won't be changed. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 09:52:45 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 13:52:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45854 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnJr3-0003kQ-GO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:52:45 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f47.google.com ([209.85.128.47]:55268) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnJr1-0003k9-Ab for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:52:43 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f47.google.com with SMTP id q5so10366158wmo.4 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:52:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681480357; x=1684072357; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=PqZ6G7BtgUxe8hfbZTIV1nq6fzMloe4tSOVtA3J2Q7Y=; b=eLov9zzyX2Zd2b/MqBJ2Ytn0CWe8ySDrFAH5Gkf7WSho5EnOwdmHEYsgD1Z8d314cK dM/ZgReYXmxxkdB0cCunfj6+zKgebPEZdSh8zcwe6JWC4z9OEjTIi5kwFz9SYdD42MF+ djKRJBCg0V3TnoRTLjohszV0zgvICpvKXz6YxLL+M034rVWrHU0w8RQ/nLBMnspsILsP DvySaO829px+tb6OCUz2o9aW8Uvm0pp7EVsVFC0fW/eoSQNOsN8Nr0FgUR7bN91i/OeE zU13r8KlCSWjCI453XlJSbUcpQGJdAYykqMZEQFJaq6C5CWPs+KXqDNXjMGAPcU8OSEt McNw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681480357; x=1684072357; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PqZ6G7BtgUxe8hfbZTIV1nq6fzMloe4tSOVtA3J2Q7Y=; b=JH+pfe37sGN0v7JL2Fb5zghTGglshvvL4AfuWFVtpxuQLYbaUPRRn3rBLcONnnhNUd sdELtzab+KW0ogp3/1LTegGT3X1oBm5Byy4Evqxv/ll9/IfFT4yxSqDMwN0kYQJRxw6O axRazzTj5EqBMflxFNVaAtGmeVQSqT/lanvJK8XG3DodRgzPpt+yJvePB0YihlWf7ZxH grAEUQrhWKbZ+m6ggWLcijMRioYVjZnyoFQGE2FcJH0+Vz8OIfv0ZDUZVbw5THk1LK2k xiFPySj9qf7GbIVtrm017vK9etTYP0PJW+UagyaYsNO8Ufzx0R/RjBqkCk9m/34RaboC tgEw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eCf2P4ZFh2Zxyoh1vORBpTN/hisxAVfqeNFpHNwNhN8y9duGZo 1XGkOc7TDv85bgurmSYkMi4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZrmKDNkbjfuIzieL93tVvO0oXTEuaHrkjFjLrkV0855J1fnpHKiR8MoGD7z2uYF4RnaTb6Dw== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:ce19:0:b0:3f0:7dd1:8e4b with SMTP id m25-20020a7bce19000000b003f07dd18e4bmr4344761wmc.6.1681480356845; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rltb ([82.66.8.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m9-20020a05600c160900b003f0b1c4f229sm1289418wmn.28.2023.04.14.06.52.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Pluim To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:56:05 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:52:35 +0200 Message-ID: <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Philip Kaludercic , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) >>>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:56:05 +0100, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora said: Jo=C3=A3o> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 1:34=E2=80=AFPM Robert Pluim wrote: >> So on master if I upgrade all packages, ':core' packages would be >> automatically upgraded as well? Jo=C3=A3o> By definition, all :core packages in master are already at t= heir Jo=C3=A3o> newest version. >> I strongly object to that as a >> default; just because there=CA=BCs a newer version on elpa of a :core Jo=C3=A3o> I really planned to sit this one out, but I'd like to make Jo=C3=A3o> sure people understand the implications of what they're aski= ng for. Jo=C3=A3o> On Emacs 26, 27, 28 if the user has Jo=C3=A3o> (package-install 'some-package-now-in-core) Jo=C3=A3o> in her configuration, it gets upgraded to the most recent ve= rsion Jo=C3=A3o> there is. In subsequent forms, the config can start doing s= tuff with Jo=C3=A3o> the variables and definitions in 'some-package-now-in-core',= etc. Jo=C3=A3o> And the user can enjoy the newest features and bugfixes. Jo=C3=A3o> On Emacs 29 and later, the very same config will do nothing Jo=C3=A3o> and even probably/possibly break with an error. Jo=C3=A3o> Furthermore, the subtle problem will grow more serious and Jo=C3=A3o> bizarre as time goes on and "some-package-now-in-core" evolv= es. Jo=C3=A3o> It might not break for users who upgrade to 29 next month Jo=C3=A3o> and break for users who upgrade to 29 in 6 months' time, bec= ause Jo=C3=A3o> "some-package-now-in-core" will have evolved significantly. >> package doesn=CA=BCt mean emacs should upgrade to it unless *explici= tly* >> told to do so. I have no objection to catering to people who have already asked for the installation of a package that is now :core. But one that wasn=CA=BCt installed explicitly (ie it=CA=BCs only there because Emacs now ships it) shouldn=CA=BCt be upgraded. Jo=C3=A3o> I really don't understand why M-x package-install RET Jo=C3=A3o> RET isn't explicit enough. But I gu= ess a Jo=C3=A3o> a confirmation prompt could be logical. I haven't followed Jo=C3=A3o> all mails, maybe someone has proposed that? I don=CA=BCt know. I=CA=BCd be fine with that. Jo=C3=A3o> As for non-interactive package-install, I guess that finding= an Jo=C3=A3o> explicit `package-install` somewhere in the configuration is= reason Jo=C3=A3o> enough to assume that the user meant for it to have the mean= ing Jo=C3=A3o> and effect it has always had before she upgraded to a version Jo=C3=A3o> where the same package happens to be in :core, and that mean= ing is Jo=C3=A3o> "upgrade to the newest". I think we=CA=BCre pretty much in agreement :-) Robert --=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 11:35:06 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 15:35:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47333 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLS6-0007Dp-KV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:35:06 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f44.google.com ([209.85.210.44]:45659) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLS4-0007DG-9Y for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:35:05 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f44.google.com with SMTP id cg19-20020a056830631300b0069f922cd5ceso8883211otb.12 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:35:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681486498; x=1684078498; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=PS9BlvdsvJDY9yqRba1zEg+sh6tA8Rs0C8uGxmm1snI=; b=ZRj23AikNbE+vYRIPC6oeA3rx4Q/enLPdQNpF+3Z2B1pQ3PeqrD3nEQFK9NL8iNtyt Fcs/Yq/cVLF9aM4iz6mNTnL7jGlaP7RzMguqTiTKURahTQbK+kSpQQ0mKy9vZk/xaS1j V07HNKll0Aq4SskBW2vERf0gpcKvPm8SGdtwnx+O4+IH2wsA91Y4ocxM1N1+WOT+Rahb BIIYM003allD4erX2ljDpeTdwufLhFQWMXl3Re0ylqYM6+xbpdp8IutDLbn0U8tbWcLM a9JY9IDkjP1zMfpouTTFZe6PYA4eUe2yCG4tkKks9fnZ5BX/dFBy92n9AVJrzrw4KWy9 n1ag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681486498; x=1684078498; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PS9BlvdsvJDY9yqRba1zEg+sh6tA8Rs0C8uGxmm1snI=; b=Eic+iGVqe5HwBBv6ZCIHaeW3XuvNuCcXUMk3fdQKIcxO9kHmD2lJ8scTARVxpiklH9 E+zwN5rxkQSelnTYRoxo8/XA+zM+EikRYHJCwD1rFXsLJrKLGUxIHoudYRN0GFVQoO1S pIKNUzSZKtjYqb5wV4YmdaZTH1X6yWhqFronqPJU7ExN2yJurwC1JHPUpC8g8JtuvPVD ZJoi5yyf4JOu84SY7QbCzpGsf+k1jG2XXC1YDl0hqRrSRN6qzIqRU2SQIkZdUdlCLZaC hScl4kVFkkHWR0e3rvTAbsmAxheCZ+deMF0PY9mpFUA4TuhTG3Sw/s0Ei/dYH4qXcF8x m65w== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fDgabgW4QRi5kNRo8Vy9dgCJAKHmbFKrLZH1nw+furxApCf18b xn3c3vaU3xsQhIOL6lAjLI6+ftCsJN/9JZKb1GZBTaDgMas= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YzQ/OgpxDquBX+G0rEAOz1aFVoolxlYiRi2HsJtQK0A/sw6ehkyt50NAIHzW28dYdeRBdrJPSeKSWXH1LMmKE= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:65d7:0:b0:6a3:934f:b741 with SMTP id z23-20020a9d65d7000000b006a3934fb741mr1814728oth.4.1681486498349; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:34:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:34:47 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Robert Pluim Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Philip Kaludercic , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 2:52=E2=80=AFPM Robert Pluim wro= te: > I have no objection to catering to people who have already asked for > the installation of a package that is now :core. But one that wasn=CA=BCt > installed explicitly (ie it=CA=BCs only there because Emacs now ships it) > shouldn=CA=BCt be upgraded. I think I don't fully understand. Maybe you can answer this: if a user is setting up Emacs 28 in company laptop machines regularly and does M-x package-install RET eglot RET there, or has a script with (package-install 'eglot), should or shouldn't this user, in your opinion, be allowed to do exactly the same, with the same predictable results (in this case getting the latest Eglot), when she start= s doing the same in Emacs 29, which now contains Eglot as a built-in? What about other builtin packages that, contrary to Eglot, already existed in Emacs 28? If your answer is different now, maybe we should record that difference somewhere, so we know what packages came from ELPA into :core and when, and can decide accordingly. Who knows maybe just whitelisting Eglot and any other packages that weren't built-in in 28 and are now built-in Emacs 29 is the answer to all this. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 11:52:55 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 15:52:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47361 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLjG-0007qT-HL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:52:55 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:33078) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLjE-0007qF-7c for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:52:48 -0400 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A171080C97; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4C95F80814; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:52:41 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1681487561; bh=divIUTy0M0JuYuufeV/hT1yNbi+kH2lq2tw1pwiriUw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=WGd2R0K4+V/rmtyF3mRU+xTM8ppYiQRhmuooMoiR5H8/+9+ZzxOX0BmyOg0wVEnvA bqNaq66MX7xmOfq1wxXIO7hOojyLYWt1qpdHcVQN2bqjJ1pSJ5P69m29igKHo9x8gf gRXttqR9MmcUX1U5PnC3XkPRARiOyooKUcVG+vXakapTJ1Eis0L7rkEcLwKGpiiFvI lldw16Ju+RvW9LrixxTq5X3et5C5SYBniBOjucSc7j8Ysl431p4tZVWMBhCCdr16k3 wpFJy1T0aNWkjAWgSqLnaS0RwKJO1Q6W3eLO++5c5wQp+AqFkgXqpeVKqXcwPMX/so 1nUJ4BJE53GDw== Received: from alfajor (modemcable005.21-80-70.mc.videotron.ca [70.80.21.5]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2C721202DB; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:52:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vora=22's?= message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:34:47 +0100") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:52:40 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.120 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Philip Kaludercic , larsi@gnus.org, Robert Pluim , Eli Zaretskii , 62720@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: -3.3 (---) > Maybe you can answer this: if a user is setting up Emacs 28 in company > laptop machines regularly and does M-x package-install RET eglot RET there, > or has a script with (package-install 'eglot), should or shouldn't this > user, in your opinion, be allowed to do exactly the same, with the same > predictable results (in this case getting the latest Eglot), when she starts > doing the same in Emacs 29, which now contains Eglot as a built-in? Good point. I think the answer is that we should distinguish "install" from "upgrade" (and offer a way to do both, of course). And I think we do want to break backward compatibility here (arguably we even can't not break compatibility), because the Emacs<29 semantics of `package-install` is "broken", since it does "install&upgrade" for non-builtin packages but not for builtin packages: either we keep that semantics and compatibility is broken when packages move to/from builtin, or we change that semantics and compatibility is broken by the change in semantics :-) Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 12:04:36 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:04:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47388 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLud-0008H8-Oe for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:04:36 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:45005) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLuY-0008Gr-97 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:04:34 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2378D5820F2; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:04:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681488265; x=1681491865; bh=TT2h8XiRG3J5mHaD4Z1o5kXzk3EemLFWGRa Q2KYYuMM=; b=gXUQzx6zH1tKhqGkp0I3yoFLRDbv9t4IzwFSTlhdHFJk35MYuEn jw7EwFLiT07v0g6lK2iS9Q8YQVHmLoY8yEHrDLjYavhSgx5nYaU0OPQH3AgZSA0f lfx8YD0R4fedwqPU62+DB+HtmB5jog4rcbotP4vkqkCL2I6Tk/dcWG0roM0uvUIc WorsQ15fEGfxZlNQDUodiX8jsiFpOe40UCzEBklQQ0f9V5SS1IMgLPtkHBF4s5Kc oPaHONaJJDyEiuze5qTXK2nLSYI4mv8KCntSRFNBwsusP+NKCUerzGqrWHMwjJst DpkWhb77hikCAmf963LeCdrqwHCzGIW80Ag== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681488265; x=1681491865; bh=TT2h8XiRG3J5mHaD4Z1o5kXzk3EemLFWGRa Q2KYYuMM=; b=SzjmShbOkEEb+lRrmYCYPxaajLBCN6SWXpisAHqp0n3OacbHhAP e99B7z+lgp5XBLTucgUtiSkxx6JMR2a/4aHdZGZO9rUcJEujX+FM6UjzWeUT8n7q H0DP3i2Qf60EKnA6cxTagSbgqVDOP5ghppoR2w7BEayF39iGc+Glu69fXOgZMF3c EPbU/i/SpdT5Llne5fwI1XgACE5/h2lPfYSdmeGQZ61j1e24hCwtfGslOZKV2dSC 6nUxUkcXB0PyAZfL4nJJRsHPZkuDgDyXXkcxMZJeMSPTh68Gujo00kYEKEoQIx15 iMAt91iCMPJESOYIWmkW7pIhea3aoPHYoKg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdeltddgleeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:04:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:04:20 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii , Robert Pluim References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <83jzyefuq1.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83jzyefuq1.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.1 (--) On 14/04/2023 16:40, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> So on master if I upgrade all packages, ':core' packages would be >> automatically upgraded as well? > is that what the default of that option means? > >> I strongly object to that as a default; just because thereʼs a newer >> version on elpa of a :core package doesnʼt mean emacs should upgrade >> to it unless*explicitly* told to do so. > I said we_can_ change the default; I didn't say we_must_. If enough > people object to making that the default, it won't be changed. We need to have a change in behavior that allows 'M-x package-install' to upgrade built-in packages. But that shouldn't automatically mean that package-menu-mark-upgrades marks all built-in packages for upgrade, or package-upgrade-all (nee package-update-all) does that either. We could have another option that enables the latter to upgrade all built-ins too, of course. Regarding the currently proposed user option, does it make sense to you to have such option that decides whether package-install upgrades built-ins? Whereas one can always upgrade a built-in package using 'i' (package-menu-mark-install) in the list-packages menu, no matter the value of that option. I get the backward-compatibility intent, but user options should also do something logical from a user's point of view. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 12:05:49 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:05:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47392 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLvp-0008JL-5C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:05:49 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f48.google.com ([209.85.210.48]:39710) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLvn-0008J4-AF for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:05:48 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f48.google.com with SMTP id k101-20020a9d19ee000000b006a14270bc7eso6514001otk.6 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:05:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681488341; x=1684080341; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=mc92ob5LjkOAbNZY8vd3ELBs5dZ2Azd7jVKxoITac0I=; b=mcYxH8vTwtaEoZxT2NEXvdfrjs7EnMo72Pz15OOvpwFwj954fXv9RItH8irMtNVdkY UpKtuZUksGc7HigwvJ0Ho2hgn4tu93ZLDIRNTf/EKfD0SgQY81Ikc6WRbpIL7qWgBcKd KOv99WfaaGVRXx/iZLRYhty6cHbzB/6cHZlzr+1C2m3l2Zj/LCrQspVKK0O9ATziY9JI gi4cdMJeWa4TvRBMhgNJq8ezU0ysuKGzhicVOwt03y3s980mhzL0oqGtvyjQ1flOHawM zoEFpsbRvXa0aTXdNcue5mWAlc6V33Zsak2t0+k6rMRtQVPUwjSKclObcr2QMOAi6UIt e0PA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681488341; x=1684080341; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mc92ob5LjkOAbNZY8vd3ELBs5dZ2Azd7jVKxoITac0I=; b=QjXb5S7bAO1tTe8wlYoyfxuwxaghsKqzgmabObhawLONizTwTh7isZk3ZhpRx9AQdi sDrRYlJAjdel8XDNX+jGvq9R0W0maUSYcAFAIPpWo983UJ+wOyhPDL04Umei+sWopirq 9VY+6HOh10BfDraT+oJR0xSoczEQV4NYBPee3HyDqyTMJLASppTVT2VLh/RN0B0EAUl+ oFFXvloj8d0ORPlhtnO+T0RZvXPrgcMZ64RXNkV0SC4ldna7HAryRVlyr6ggNLVzllie yCruq62Hou7x49mlvFQackEsN5hyhxlDTBBG1NG3JuyMsXqcRt+/7c6OcRHKZki/tlzX B2GQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dOHIG8bvAF18LdLbrnWA+RhkTJe77BZzKoDGGTPRYmd9TAzp3W 5ScDMpC5oEwniE2qbqBS+/PTm0GpFI0FXY32G9Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Z9VMCdRPSMbAJrZBbLoqEnSuXJShbqGDgyv3WnyZV3D8L5fYhvmSEkc0lRfINNN73AEyfTMAq/b9oUQX9JM1Y= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:61cf:0:b0:6a4:4bce:fa1a with SMTP id h15-20020a9d61cf000000b006a44bcefa1amr423895otk.4.1681488341526; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:05:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:05:30 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Stefan Monnier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Philip Kaludercic , larsi@gnus.org, Robert Pluim , Eli Zaretskii , 62720@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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 4:52=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > Maybe you can answer this: if a user is setting up Emacs 28 in company > > laptop machines regularly and does M-x package-install RET eglot RET th= ere, > > or has a script with (package-install 'eglot), should or shouldn't this > > user, in your opinion, be allowed to do exactly the same, with the same > > predictable results (in this case getting the latest Eglot), when she s= tarts > > doing the same in Emacs 29, which now contains Eglot as a built-in? > > Good point. I think the answer is that we should distinguish "install" > from "upgrade" (and offer a way to do both, of course). > > And I think we do want to break backward compatibility here (arguably we > even can't not break compatibility), because the Emacs<29 semantics of > `package-install` is "broken", since it does "install&upgrade" for > non-builtin packages but not for builtin packages: either we keep that > semantics and compatibility is broken when packages move to/from > builtin, or we change that semantics and compatibility is broken by the > change in semantics :-) I would think it's too late in the game to break compatibility. Naming aside package-install has certain behaviour that for a certain set of inputs used to produce predictable things. Now, for the same inputs it does nothing on Emacs 29. I think it should do the same thing, not only because it's nicer for the unsuspecting user, but also because trying to protect this user from "unintentional" upgrade of certain "unstable" packages, as it seems to be the idea here, is a losing game anyway, just because dependencies. Presumably, the packaging system where it takes less than a day to fix release a bug fix and deliver this to the archives, should be the protection. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 12:12:49 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:12:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47410 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnM2b-0008VQ-3Z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:12:49 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:37617) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnM2Z-0008VB-Uj for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:12:48 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEEA358204C; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:12:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681488762; x=1681492362; bh=h1vezM2wIEDUPeDcGd/PpZC0+vLg9Hzy22g VdygaixA=; b=dELBz+mylJz2hE1awcJ4awd32r0mLuSk8HimlmSzCDTUzyoltm8 RxepznJh/2oogNjua5DweV6Z5nI7Y/C7npY6SCpgU3U2i5xC0cUfwH1MDUkkaXwE IsuwuWfvog4Y85vgd1700uRDlgyqxzTH6nHvnosHwKzR8choNyrBI4gsfgH4oA8A 3DeNT76qlQaOlXjbHFQtuAuYB5rA8Sym077WzoHI5gcx5+aPfdIJOWGwC/CHuEwJ WumJbGBiPh78u9JDeGWTEPOi8gS0XK3ARQhMD9YWk2eJisk9CtiF8yCMn7iymHWT ce+/jCfCe06A/ArINKTzGFRf9nAEpctAfHw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681488762; x=1681492362; bh=h1vezM2wIEDUPeDcGd/PpZC0+vLg9Hzy22g VdygaixA=; b=SXfCp01fjWqZGh9CVVhvbrpUnbuFU0dHBT8R4XxqXt5q4AO2m7l zMagIFql3wYL+OUPz5zp87/4w9f+8w6c83w3HPicXrxUI7QMN9ofiqkZ8LG+eyEk Q2OVOv6rwmela6Ih9qUoJDaxahAVzrdWRY2/IryHnUKFA8ZA6aMdMV0mfqu2boJH R9WjC883tge8TRnJJhEba1I4SNlzyhF3OFp5bxyWW5uOm2NhXPYPJ0WmC/FJN3B8 jXSj4Spx4fJUP0IO5w9RdcR2dXPPBAgtRcWFy6uCxOfvWB/3IlgMgM6yEGnKvjRj jEtrWCtT46IYH8nH2gSB8msyMiPaP/166dw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdeltddgleekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:12:38 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= , Robert Pluim References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.1 (--) On 14/04/2023 18:34, João Távora wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 2:52 PM Robert Pluim wrote: > >> I have no objection to catering to people who have already asked for >> the installation of a package that is now :core. But one that wasnʼt >> installed explicitly (ie itʼs only there because Emacs now ships it) >> shouldnʼt be upgraded. > I think I don't fully understand. > > Maybe you can answer this: if a user is setting up Emacs 28 in company > laptop machines regularly and does M-x package-install RET eglot RET there, > or has a script with (package-install 'eglot), should or shouldn't this > user, in your opinion, be allowed to do exactly the same, with the same > predictable results (in this case getting the latest Eglot), when she starts > doing the same in Emacs 29, which now contains Eglot as a built-in? I think Robert asked whether 'M-x package-menu-mark-upgrades' would mark Eglot for upgrade even if the user never marked it for upgrade explicitly before (e.g. with 'M-x package-install'). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 12:28:35 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:28:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47425 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMHr-0002u2-GR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:28:35 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:36495) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMHq-0002tq-Cn for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:28:34 -0400 Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 207511000D6; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:28:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B24471000BC; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:28:27 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1681489707; bh=gTlbopgD7fxEN71/UwlRW+s3XY3bzWRzFO5woNAyLtE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=hFW6gQBeetpZRULNH8pLdClzLgZ6aUOIeL//AxfdbudUkS9FGT2ljsk4QNY1oTPPb bTy+Y5oycYibCIdBIRY73UH0YUMbWplgzEOEdc8lhRCjaJo+LCxx06CYRI+0FSq31+ xeNysAM9e3vlh1lrnemcSbXK0URWg/D8wv7WB8tyg8R2fkuqk5c1RwTlvuRtkEjT5s 8XLb0FIlQf3MINlsRUvTvgdkJHSAU3lMUM6FnwTGvWzOC5VRaWm2TRMMOE67rrF1VF M1ZjxOvSM+eE+dxsOzR7hTx/ZgaQnJse+vOrV1S2CzLED9T3Uq0zZlZZkfD30YDij9 rQ3t0UbTadeeg== Received: from alfajor (modemcable005.21-80-70.mc.videotron.ca [70.80.21.5]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EA00120348; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:28:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vora=22's?= message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:05:30 +0100") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:28:26 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL -0.064 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Philip Kaludercic , larsi@gnus.org, Robert Pluim , Eli Zaretskii , 62720@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: -3.3 (---) > I would think it's too late in the game to break compatibility. > Naming aside package-install has certain behaviour that for a certain > set of inputs used to produce predictable things. > Now, for the same inputs it does nothing on Emacs 29. The only way I can think of to preserve compatibility is to change the behavior so it doesn't pay attention to "is builtin or not" but to "used to be builtin before Emacs-29". This would make a bad semantics even worse, so I'd rather we fix the semantics to something clean. > I think it should do the same thing, not only because it's > nicer for the unsuspecting user, but also because trying to > protect this user from "unintentional" upgrade of certain "unstable" > packages, as it seems to be the idea here, is a losing game > anyway, just because dependencies. You may be right: maybe the distinction between "install only" and "install&upgrade" isn't worth the trouble. I think to get closer to a useful "install only" behavior we'd want that command to prompt the user before upgrading dependencies (tho probably only for those in `package-selected-packages`). BTW, for me the reluctance to upgrade when asked to install isn't due to the risk that the package is "unstable". I'm not completely sure what is the reason, admittedly, but it's closer to viewing it as a silent "change of distribution", or maybe it's because I like to know when behavior may change and merely installing a package shouldn't change Emacs's behavior. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 12:31:43 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:31:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47430 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMKt-00030B-2Q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:31:43 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f49.google.com ([209.85.210.49]:38486) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMKr-0002zy-Fx for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:31:41 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f49.google.com with SMTP id w19-20020a9d6393000000b006a43ff0f57cso1401705otk.5 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:31:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681489896; x=1684081896; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=vf/gcbOuR76m2NCQkbtBMXhJKJtetskJlINpkRD1Yps=; b=ViOrMVgI0gu40GqDZ63XWJdBGPUPO4POaVARUP0/MuYPXiBJ4uiIw/GHbFWIhi+YHj 6SZKVUk14Wzq9O4iq/nLa2mT+bfhCC6sQq5dhOiK9iXjA3UAn1z8tHLWTbKz/xLPE6JW yOO020wcbzsctaPW0N/KmQI0zZEv+/OiUhHzvRPX2SpgDoG6D/cWxcMU8jIBLxGVmQYi siTZMt3uXKFX2CyMm4NJFoespFYtcoGf60ug+IhdbTYa+jxVhnkDaonKWfnkIZohxTo+ 7RNJUyb/8SUK2m552VwKESn0N4ybUChUNTfECqkWj4/KPYqlWG2PCHD1i9ZRzVe3/Fiz Q3MA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681489896; x=1684081896; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vf/gcbOuR76m2NCQkbtBMXhJKJtetskJlINpkRD1Yps=; b=JywXg1z+KqeA350qvbL818RaT/0C55Sv5t80TJPrbnciOzd+SjVI6/M6jszcoUbGcR rtxErYnmbP3tCHHAhGlZ+4fdlmhWhDMs9Puu7Y9zSdl/uzuZKXoRQipmSU/+ynPuW0Vi 5TI+yBoMYUsuT+zi9DDO1AH5//29KNp0sJLkuSK1F0tNYaeJgLuv+VgqbkMiahhy4iRB vr6tTX0xjHq3PXAriNp0TD5FrOXAdUkOiMjHpByKakGU7U7+ZtqiZTh4Yu0h87BySQVg 8PMfI7BMGbTUshoT3DFdetfl1ZgkQAFLaarnbyhH7wRwClcCxfaJmqnoIvVAp/FL90me mCJA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cvNdG2qWnvbfm/X/QY8d3vTm2LalVddqfOZqAD1WytnMsniat0 +prQvAjAn7r693kanrm+HAvaEGyv/R48eEvsc10= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZRR8gyF6vLfNC32DxQAnGF12pbOTAXvhofRw/oQFPjoZjvI0E7hRFVqsP6rEhvbAXl4199a3PUNbmLN1GsoKM= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6c0e:0:b0:6a4:3385:7a6f with SMTP id f14-20020a9d6c0e000000b006a433857a6fmr1549919otq.4.1681489895850; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:31:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:31:24 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Pluim , Philip Kaludercic , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii 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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 5:12=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov wro= te: > > On 14/04/2023 18:34, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 2:52=E2=80=AFPM Robert Pluim = wrote: > > > >> I have no objection to catering to people who have already asked for > >> the installation of a package that is now :core. But one that wasn=CA= =BCt > >> installed explicitly (ie it=CA=BCs only there because Emacs now ships = it) > >> shouldn=CA=BCt be upgraded. > > I think I don't fully understand. > > > > Maybe you can answer this: if a user is setting up Emacs 28 in company > > laptop machines regularly and does M-x package-install RET eglot RET th= ere, > > or has a script with (package-install 'eglot), should or shouldn't this > > user, in your opinion, be allowed to do exactly the same, with the same > > predictable results (in this case getting the latest Eglot), when she s= tarts > > doing the same in Emacs 29, which now contains Eglot as a built-in? > > I think Robert asked whether 'M-x package-menu-mark-upgrades' would mark > Eglot for upgrade even if the user never marked it for upgrade > explicitly before (e.g. with 'M-x package-install'). Sorry, I missed that. This package-menu interface really seems like its own thing, a separate package manager with its own nomenclature and rules. BTW use-package also calls package-install, and (use-package eglot :ensure t) is the number one installation form for Eglot says google, chatGPT and 4 out of 5 bugs I get. Unless special steps are taken there, it will likely be broken, too. That form will no longer give users the latest Eglot starting Emacs 29. Fortunately, though the use-package manual "expects that most users will find [package.el] capable enough", it also explains how to switch away from package.el into a third party package-manager. Given the state of this bug and for their sake, I hope they do. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 12:34:17 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:34:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47435 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMNM-00033t-Km for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:34:17 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:46663) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMNL-00033h-1N for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:34:15 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14EA5822C7; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:34:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681490049; x=1681493649; bh=ZE6AP2TJrkB9FZtwPtvp+OdedEOUfVOmVQg VxopIabI=; b=GQnTTtC8foIiQVEXJdfM8RINzStfop9DfmnRDxlzyZ1v5D62E1E /q7xpMrJ9xrpIb00XIkEW0mgtFC1/khOZ/uwUiass77T605VwJ9RC5bfF/X4Lkws kxQlD+8su5Up/f9W465DMI1y2vlFudKxBufMobvVh1zu1P2zXP8wD51ykTPSsvyx GmB3vIvaSNWl+CFReKR8agE1XdhahPF/76DT2qLPxzgZWkpB1gHdJu3JyQ1OapCy FHmGUUrGX9Q6Tv/8R9Ccu9aerc9kzWBtAj/vE9ry/kCRFk8MBecawNov7dgB8irA 3x/kEp90caZAAuc7J8F2osj6Pfd7P3foXzg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681490049; x=1681493649; bh=ZE6AP2TJrkB9FZtwPtvp+OdedEOUfVOmVQg VxopIabI=; b=QxycDAN8mXMJiAy8bXSD/NZ81YTFMPCAWVYsasqyD3AqwAZsb8+ bdy8sQ1bxvEWlhHLL8+YP5pA/kOZN+0oSJvDvvwEBR8EDMc1Pv5WssSokquBI9T3 5ZGLOMCVIpH3XtIjioY7DvF/K6AA0x+jBTSydcP/JQgeX/7nmbp2Zp0tz8MRo4vj +3iUfwvdwsH/sa8VEIM8tOXf5uXJFC2iNDCMwfMLq21dTAnCDQr2FQqi29YHg9Ko iaHg0oVBVQLrREuI7c0orKc85V3tw+sQRg3/o/l3uQICuuj95EgA/cvCH1GK67A/ eSUmrWIFCzzYUc1+PmrYIfHRCMSbrpL28fg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdeltddguddtvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeigfetveehveevffehledtueekieeikeeufeegudfgfeeghfdulefgfeev ledvveenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:34:06 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Stefan Monnier , =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, Robert Pluim 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: -2.1 (--) On 14/04/2023 19:28, Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors wrote: >> I would think it's too late in the game to break compatibility. >> Naming aside package-install has certain behaviour that for a certain >> set of inputs used to produce predictable things. >> Now, for the same inputs it does nothing on Emacs 29. > > The only way I can think of to preserve compatibility is to change the > behavior so it doesn't pay attention to "is builtin or not" but to "used > to be builtin before Emacs-29". This would make a bad semantics even > worse, so I'd rather we fix the semantics to something clean. We could add a new attribute/package header which would mean "eagerly upgradable [even when] built-in". >> I think it should do the same thing, not only because it's >> nicer for the unsuspecting user, but also because trying to >> protect this user from "unintentional" upgrade of certain "unstable" >> packages, as it seems to be the idea here, is a losing game >> anyway, just because dependencies. > > You may be right: maybe the distinction between "install only" and > "install&upgrade" isn't worth the trouble. > > I think to get closer to a useful "install only" behavior we'd want that > command to prompt the user before upgrading dependencies (tho probably > only for those in `package-selected-packages`). > > BTW, for me the reluctance to upgrade when asked to install isn't due to > the risk that the package is "unstable". I'm not completely sure what > is the reason, admittedly, but it's closer to viewing it as a silent > "change of distribution", That's my feeling too. > or maybe it's because I like to know when behavior may change and merely installing a package shouldn't change Emacs's behavior. This is probably a different question: whether 'M-x package-install' should do upgrades at all, whether the package is built-in or not. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 12:39:40 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:39:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47441 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMSa-0003BL-Fu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:39:40 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:59581) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMSY-0003B9-BW for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:39:38 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95C76240227 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:39:32 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681490372; bh=OBCl1PuL9mo4gA0aYyTnEtR8SMl9AlFZ2LWYyCaXCYs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=k98aU3ldX2uZqi20TPK13ryMii9yN19QyIsn4I8mn94jr3FbnNDXtb/Laon/Vcf9s 3OKxK3PBi+KFXQiLi3yAgt7HiBJoh9eYtrVnDVpT4HrZcxrTUQpH+Vj7Ur1QTPgD5T wML8gBiFQRz5yDLIHo8u9hZfZB6x7UK0nEJ/JFzEqOsS8TSqoqVYGWXbadj3DSG+Sc SexeMY6E+MIxKm16xSu903ThuBiWYz5fBTvjJUtFyaN8QtqnbgaEWkUI2QY5+sF0Sh yN0WWe761nxDkcgWmTsh0A5VeVx9xQbBwSBJj09U3saUcFkeHc3+YqhXXzquoDYY4O SyEexnACF1TJQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PyhxH66Chz6tvp; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:39:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:56:49 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:40:01 +0000 Message-ID: <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:14:37 +0000 >> >> > Are we still sure we want to change package-install, not >> > package-upgrade? AFAIU, there were several voices that preferred the >> > latter, with the rationale that a built-in package is always >> > "installed", so "installing" it makes little or no sense. >> >> If you want that, here is one proposal. Should be the smallest so far: > > Hmm... looks identical to the previous patch you sent, which changes > package-install? Or what am I missing? > > As for the question I asked: I'm okay with changing package-install if > there are no objections from those who proposed to change > package-upgrade instead. Did I send the wrong patch. I double-checked now and this one should be using package-update: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-Allow-package-update-to-upgrade-built-in-packages.patch >From 7b3ca355785b7539dd417317442054647e66c045 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Philip Kaludercic Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:12:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Allow 'package-update' to upgrade built-in packages * lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el (package-update): Add support for upgrading a built-in package to a version available from ELPA. (Bug#62720) --- lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..8e7bc115a73 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -2236,18 +2236,32 @@ package-install ;;;###autoload (defun package-update (name) - "Update package NAME if a newer version exists." + "Update package NAME if a newer version exists. +When invoked with a prefix argument, the prompt will also include +built-in packages that can be upgraded via a package archive." (interactive (list (completing-read - "Update package: " (package--updateable-packages) nil t))) + "Update package: " + (append + (and current-prefix-arg + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (and (not (assq (car elt) (package--alist))) + (package-built-in-p (car elt)) + (list (symbol-name (car elt))))) + package-archive-contents)) + (package--updateable-packages)) + nil t))) (let* ((package (if (symbolp name) name (intern name))) - (pkg-desc (cadr (assq package package-alist)))) - (if (package-vc-p pkg-desc) - (package-vc-update pkg-desc) - (package-delete pkg-desc 'force) - (package-install package 'dont-select)))) + (old-desc (cadr (assq package package-alist))) + (new-desc (cadr (assq package package-archive-contents)))) + (if (and old-desc (package-vc-p old-desc)) + (package-vc-update old-desc) + (when old-desc + (package-delete old-desc 'force)) + (package-install new-desc 'dont-select)))) (defun package--updateable-packages () ;; Initialize the package system to get the list of package -- 2.39.2 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 12:41:03 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:41:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47445 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMTv-0003Ds-1m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:41:03 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f41.google.com ([209.85.160.41]:45710) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMTt-0003DH-7o for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:41:01 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-18779252f7fso10326865fac.12 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:41:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681490455; x=1684082455; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=YjSWaI3qxmOkiMi52WJ8AglA6RmmDlTRjA+tOww+L3E=; b=FuvNl30K9mZH0dJzTySfA7MKQSKya9yEiGEgj0U6d8L/JsEE03nEvck/JDHJC5IsF2 0+P9UvGPhuPGhgyN8uQm7jWUpPdTiWsW3X9MdU6CDdiUdiallMqNV2Q4My+5MUstwitH dKttNpMVtK6Km5t/yTSYQiV4sd2idi2DZaWgENrGTzwnbqiZ+YDqm5SQW64FoLtxnomB oVEkiRutyrgb17+oUP/+fij+ScaHG7HoHK/n9Wb+HuZw83uQMFXFoo4pHYEdPuxKGhk3 r3dAKZQ4OcyXPqGmBCYYRlmoRQHZkHw4QRUlD+vAU6TdNVpDUCQ86i9Cjydqn0xwJ1Sv f/dg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681490455; x=1684082455; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YjSWaI3qxmOkiMi52WJ8AglA6RmmDlTRjA+tOww+L3E=; b=HqJyVNIoUY/yPhdHfxOenfbQDxIfpONhFkVDNc1Rht5a9ijo+gWCHWT0SorTRdVQze pR3cfjGxnDEvTsjK6QcY5OYsfe/ywcbIUHVKWeWizGfV8Mb/n0vftFVv8sjvf23AjUWx LbACY4vaEZaFaz1+01VE2M6s/gmxukzT6ejC3Wo6Y3RBKq2so7tgy8SCzWDxLqrjRY2U +ok2/N1+lt2ZadwAF2ZSYqy/uAon3UQSAR+jEyFfj0JBvf3mZQvWI+1J3XLQlJltfNmI TDF6HosPeDapn8/ugN0Ee0xxYLFLYOub/iQh8WuESd/oKngImTyPKL6ZTySEDb0u7zrM UJzA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eYHrgwEQaTlIUKuTJXOjZ5CZa6w0wVvQ5MMgwE8PcGl+waUDGH /7CwSAKskC82oSuCaODP9lcp1tZqZ6z50vmFXQg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZggN9wNgkZHRrhI+ozR7bdigosRB9v6wV2/alcnjAxvNDe2SpTNzyL2CwSXWTqAkyIwtpc0yS8cIhdxOW02/E= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:5627:b0:187:7af4:4d08 with SMTP id m39-20020a056870562700b001877af44d08mr3127906oao.5.1681490455297; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:40:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:40:44 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Stefan Monnier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Philip Kaludercic , larsi@gnus.org, Robert Pluim , Eli Zaretskii , 62720@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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 5:28=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier wrote: > The only way I can think of to preserve compatibility is to change the > behavior so it doesn't pay attention to "is builtin or not" but to "used > to be builtin before Emacs-29". Exactly, I suggested this via whiteslisting. This would be blacklisting and would be slightly cleaner. > This would make a bad semantics even worse, so I'd rather we fix > the semantics to something clean. Bad semantics or not, at least it wouldn't break stuff, and that blacklist would stay put. Installing from it would require papal benediction and that's it :-) > > I think it should do the same thing, not only because it's > > nicer for the unsuspecting user, but also because trying to > > protect this user from "unintentional" upgrade of certain "unstable" > > packages, as it seems to be the idea here, is a losing game > > anyway, just because dependencies. > > You may be right: maybe the distinction between "install only" and > "install&upgrade" isn't worth the trouble. > > I think to get closer to a useful "install only" behavior we'd want that > command to prompt the user before upgrading dependencies (tho probably > only for those in `package-selected-packages`). > > BTW, for me the reluctance to upgrade when asked to install isn't due to > the risk that the package is "unstable". I'm not completely sure what > is the reason, admittedly, but it's closer to viewing it as a silent > "change of distribution", or maybe it's because I like to know when > behavior may change and merely installing a package shouldn't change > Emacs's behavior. I don't follow, they don't. Eexcept for major modes, that is, those autoloa= d changes into auto-mode-alist. As for adding new commands, and functionality to your existing modes, well you _did_ ask for the package to be upgraded (yes I know the name is "install", but upgrading is what it has always done). Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 12:53:46 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:53:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47450 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMgE-0003eb-Es for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:53:46 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:34525) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMgB-0003eM-VB for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:53:44 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3185624022C for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:53:38 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681491218; bh=wkaW3763ZjrHgGdmLLPDyo/xsUKjUrIzjkwEeN0sn6s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=XPvHW9tLOWGJXuEeiArgonpE8wa/tHPsuKA7yk5grwOUGbsONCQNC0vrBhh6niLKD UkApPB+8lj6cFqr3H/34TrLqHjsZYfcPbIF3HPB2P7j8DaE7SeqhriD2vDIojIQsT9 mt6nDehx0MSWJf9j5WitA8kZALiuTQLT2zF2H7spJzOanOT4ALbCLsxLLDOq1k/sg5 0gMPJtahws+dUg4J1E0By8O9tJnB1qR8pCzSwnH0siCp/pNuIm1uadEEjgt9ixCmUm qKbt7OQ0l+zwykRmXP0fpZ8Oqb3i9RpZ8kgB/JgLk7n+nPC1ULKoWHGYRqM+bQbZWJ Y8l/08YSPVwOw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PyjFY4dHzz9rxG; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:53:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:31:24 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: <87leiupfps.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Pluim , Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii 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: -3.3 (---) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: [...] > Fortunately, though the use-package manual "expects that most users > will find [package.el] capable enough", it also explains how to switch > away from package.el into a third party package-manager. Given the > state of this bug and for their sake, I hope they do. As this issue only affects Eglot (a package that doesn't require that much customisation to be used), I don't think the situation is as drastic as you are portraying it to be. If we all try to have a cooperative, non-alarmist attitude towards solving the issue at hand, I am sure a suitable solution will be found. Also keep in mind that I have proposed multiple patches that take difference approaches. Perhaps it would be of use to recapitulate them, and you can explain which would be satisfying and which you think wouldn't be as helpful: - Use `package-install' to switch from a built-in package to the version from ELPA - Alternatively it has to be confirmed using a prefix argument - Alternatively it has to be enabled using a user option - Use `package-update' (not `package-update-all') to switch from a built-in package to the version from ELPA (Same alternatives as above) - Have both `package-update' and `package-update-all' switch potentially all packages from built-in versions to ELPA versions (Same alternatives as above) - Provide a separate command to switch from a built-in version to a version from ELPA That should be it? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 12:54:07 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:54:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47455 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMgY-0003fV-Pf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:54:07 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:61267) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnMgW-0003eu-9c for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:54:04 -0400 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 988ED80B0E; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2B74B80250; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:53:57 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1681491237; bh=ttllu3SOwplft2XTHpbPmQrbsEYn7gTRWKOuQfcG7yA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=KhcZDrng6L1IW61QPKJj2eWDoKs02+h3yG0OpjGn/ikSFhLjNSLMr4cv0nspsHjKp kaRfzWAs4I8gep+p4tnLfAzVlgyBPeRTWqJWF9v4VwR195hV1xzapaiU1DuRx3jqJn mbQh11CrTDWRIhM1Fry75oiwnJ6xCnzg2Kf5qPT+eQjenDZSvIY8M6Bvx6JB29i6Ny KMT67oKsDB9wJtvf+hKgcEpVQ1fNpELfWmrItRbLBfNYDbSFCjmXZq0ol4Bykds+XH CEEyn7GEzOb4l0OXrZXHW4zYkA9s/e4KFT8g2iBs0R7fKtDHGJLep0KW2kz/B5lV+7 K2n24lGjCTwkQ== Received: from alfajor (modemcable005.21-80-70.mc.videotron.ca [70.80.21.5]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECC8A120328; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:53:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vora=22's?= message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:40:44 +0100") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:53:56 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.305 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Philip Kaludercic , larsi@gnus.org, Robert Pluim , Eli Zaretskii , 62720@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: -3.3 (---) >> BTW, for me the reluctance to upgrade when asked to install isn't due to >> the risk that the package is "unstable". I'm not completely sure what >> is the reason, admittedly, but it's closer to viewing it as a silent >> "change of distribution", or maybe it's because I like to know when >> behavior may change and merely installing a package shouldn't change >> Emacs's behavior. [...] > functionality to your existing modes, well you _did_ ask for the > package to be upgraded No, as the first line above shows, I'm talking about "asked to install", not "asked to upgrade". Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 13:30:56 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 17:30:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47508 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNGC-0004ev-8E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:30:56 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:46668) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNGA-0004ei-OD for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:30:55 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1842e8a8825so22735834fac.13 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:30:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681493449; x=1684085449; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=i5I71TP5SDPsnc3K0ux4LHWV2cQn6dvYuJaXCmxNFx8=; b=mg/dCiDHpO0NWOeOfH2j8dgelfe5FaDMmra9FrUUBIjxRSapGe9TTFF0R3/uxKnBVN kngGvBgU1lyvUenGtFklyanlCuHz0D1wIFADOYwmQhAmC1M8LkdoQ17yGukYTp9N91AL whBmvUwmh21HPlsj9UfvrwxlDDLcauxhbabzmKMnXkvx2gzLXa5fk/4xk4ZUGCIdXzpO sn3hVG6zwYijyRy2pS2TmOiHbk9Q8fG9P+wuYs43tFh9PF+BnJbR2DF7KM9RQeU75qKW GzRg2aJDQ+J/fNlsszwbyWsLXq+yU2CLYZ1JhFmx8R/jgjZl6e3D5zrPchyor1YSstkK EoYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681493449; x=1684085449; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=i5I71TP5SDPsnc3K0ux4LHWV2cQn6dvYuJaXCmxNFx8=; b=CWL/586HvT9rYI3DdfT7rSqcVIY0o/McwVKkbLtBLs01yJnDAJZ80a0p2l6FE15A7D HstnwsdrFpjzaXjAj29BppFFbCg9pcjUzgZk9Cqqbk/DFY/ncaw+yR4gjJO1d3Odp4Jc /YOztCeazvCMYxV+flg76IUIsUB5uNMJHp/Lso9JsX7vExI/UEho7dpcG7gMNf7bZ5gk iD/Jb5OrcdKjx/eli7XNt+hoUAW1uLW48DbPaV5nC+RjLE34Ly4y2AuIvgze64CWP0pW 9DKUpFVE6lvrf5BB2q1KEHcAXJDe/BLTncGAA/vnVtTPTF/TosZlZE0SxGbQ1PgqqCxn eOFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dcl+/9XMdWOITdKfZ3Ov2yT8P7rDIXASObhIpalHUsfqCVO3FE hGUydO7D25RVZCQn56V/P4BHJaXZohp512eFJgY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Z6RKzbWHgSJYKrRjP6o4/7oBddVSG/YQR6BDdgT1ypxyvm7LfwjnZt1ryIfiRYxUz3/u4Bl+YUaBgUYTYwdnM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:3921:b0:187:85b1:1260 with SMTP id b33-20020a056870392100b0018785b11260mr2768882oap.5.1681493449053; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:30:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <87leiupfps.fsf@posteo.net> In-Reply-To: <87leiupfps.fsf@posteo.net> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:32:42 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Philip Kaludercic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Pluim , Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii 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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 5:53=E2=80=AFPM Philip Kaludercic wrote: > As this issue only affects Eglot [Didn't other packages also make it into :core?] > (a package that doesn't require that > much customisation to be used), I don't think the situation is as > drastic as you are portraying it to be. > If we all try to have a cooperative, non-alarmist attitude towards > solving the issue at hand, I am sure a suitable solution will be found. It's true it doesn't have many customization now, so downright erroring is probably rare. But it's been advancing fast and that may not always be the case. As I said Eglot 1.12 in Emacs 29 has lots of missing functionality and even bugs that are too risky to fix in that version. So I'm not being alarmist, I think. With 5 years maintainership of this package and well over 1000 issues, I think I make a fair assessment of user's expectations. As to being cooperative, I've proposed 3 different patches already, answered every question about them and proposed n other solutions. But I like your optimism nonetheless :-) > Also keep in mind that I have proposed multiple patches that take > difference approaches. Perhaps it would be of use to recapitulate them, > and you can explain which would be satisfying and which you think > wouldn't be as helpful: > > - Use `package-install' to switch from a built-in package to the version > from ELPA > > - Alternatively it has to be confirmed using a prefix argument > - Alternatively it has to be enabled using a user option > > - Use `package-update' (not `package-update-all') to switch from a > built-in package to the version from ELPA > > (Same alternatives as above) > > - Have both `package-update' and `package-update-all' switch potentially > all packages from built-in versions to ELPA versions > > (Same alternatives as above) > > - Provide a separate command to switch from a built-in version to a > version from ELPA > > That should be it? If it's not clear yet, I want(ed) something that users can use _regardless_ of the version of Emacs to bring Eglot to the latest version. I want users to be able to do this easily for obvious reasons. The prime candidate for that "something" is M-x package-install both in its command and non-interactive form. But if that isn't possible, the next best thing is a 4 line eglot-update command in eglot.el which would eventually boil down to the same (because Emacs 26/27/28 users would eventually also get it). That idea was explicitly rejected, but I hope it illustrates what I would prefer. A command and function with enduring semantics, basically, the kind you expect from a system like Emacs. Any one of your or other's solutions that provide such a command/function are most welcome. Any other that doesn', I'm indifferent to it. Which doesn't mean "against" or "hostile". And of course I thank you very much for your efforts in searching for a solution. Here's another solution you may want to consider. package-install in Emacs 29 updates built-ins non-interactively always. Interactively asks the user with a confirmation prompt. This solution would also work. Here's yet another one. package-install like the above but, as has been proposed, carefully vets the builtins that are subject to from a controlled whitelist, which would include Eglot. Stefan, Dmitry and myself have proposed some variation of this. Anyway, if my preference doesn't materialize, I'm going to recommend in the manual: M-: (package-install (alist-get 'eglot package-archive-contents) RET which works interactively and non-interactively in every version of Emacs. It's not pretty but it's the best I have. It's better than to write "if you have emacs 29, do this, else do that". Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 13:43:33 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 17:43:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47519 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNSO-0004wf-PM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:43:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45878) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNSM-0004wQ-4w for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:43:31 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNSG-0005xh-6k; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:43:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=BmBAnX30v4cI9DkZxrjw2yH38Le86xUze3jaPQ+dPB0=; b=Ms1hQpQO7+cXkaMLmWU1 RKgsW8+Fky4GBEpDuN0kcVe/XSVbj0Y2jctTG/rlQM1J5Iw+DCVD0v4VHotoaIL45+Hd2KHkLjiT8 It0i05l/t2jLIqyOgkYKzBpBjWEpIf3CymVJEJJ59nPhAj9u+VqRl57EFj8hEF37mirSdotsBVm2j 0gfYeSh43iHCcJvcHjikVvCQgAlAWAMGgTfraWOWSOMhcNO0rCgLdCc0S4mE1COYpRIC641CWS/WG VoTLJSATmN3TII5ONsHbOsYLeea1Uoo22ZbqzQY2NU8LGEaePW5+6ucS7PM+EvyUXtClk1kuVQi0b pLo5ni4oAiFbAw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNSB-0005e8-So; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:43:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:43:16 +0300 Message-Id: <837cuefjgr.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:04:20 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <83jzyefuq1.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:04:20 +0300 > Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, larsi@gnus.org, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 14/04/2023 16:40, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> So on master if I upgrade all packages, ':core' packages would be > >> automatically upgraded as well? > > is that what the default of that option means? > > > >> I strongly object to that as a default; just because thereʼs a newer > >> version on elpa of a :core package doesnʼt mean emacs should upgrade > >> to it unless*explicitly* told to do so. > > I said we_can_ change the default; I didn't say we_must_. If enough > > people object to making that the default, it won't be changed. > > We need to have a change in behavior that allows 'M-x package-install' > to upgrade built-in packages. But that shouldn't automatically mean that > package-menu-mark-upgrades marks all built-in packages for upgrade, or > package-upgrade-all (nee package-update-all) does that either. > > We could have another option that enables the latter to upgrade all > built-ins too, of course. > > Regarding the currently proposed user option, does it make sense to you > to have such option that decides whether package-install upgrades > built-ins? Whereas one can always upgrade a built-in package using 'i' > (package-menu-mark-install) in the list-packages menu, no matter the > value of that option. I get the backward-compatibility intent, but user > options should also do something logical from a user's point of view. All these questions should have been raised and discussed months ago. Then we could have done the best for the users (what that is, is still unclear even at this point). Now it's too late, and the main factor that will decide how Emacs 29.1 will behave in that regard is whether the changes to implement that are safe enough to go into Emacs 29.1. To answer your question more specifically: yes, it does make sense to me. The logic, so it seems, is in the eyes of the beholder, and my eyes do see a certain logic there. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 13:47:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 17:47:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47524 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNVw-00052h-Mh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:47:13 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:51517) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNVu-00052U-TP for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:47:11 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C94582146; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:47:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681494425; x=1681498025; bh=QtCHXOoXrbQhSTrv/PpB70tXa4YDXaGLFf+ dWRaECcY=; b=d0Bb8CcO5u7wNhm2wpJX1y/KGQZ8znsFy7YbqJ35pmL+mowGYVO IT7FMWnGK5O4V9qGjkiX2K8w+A9F6uQS0GrkRr+c831gUfc9Gin6smVKAspJrv+7 J9hn4aodPO2GRuPLHLns1bedBDcYMIZ9FNbxNodp8qrnzoiPalz52/FawoN0lMTE czYYEYm/hPk2iIBBgsFfSQfsRhC93OnJBxXbdVjMaQwh8WUZ5WZfIvS9oV0WAyi3 j9X6jNrC9B3ejyqGN5tQ7nPbmpEtR6bKrIt2IXFQ+rnVEnhDOSSzL1XVTQtX6lHS K7NOYge4NdaSdxtNN/9HuL/GO94GlpXjkYA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681494425; x=1681498025; bh=QtCHXOoXrbQhSTrv/PpB70tXa4YDXaGLFf+ dWRaECcY=; b=dVS9r0uLjzKrBtYrO6olaCaIpUomJIJ0kNuAsHPTKWCFjyW6BVI gWl/ubo93WPmz6lo6BYunV5ztx7LJQJ9wGmR6Tkba120zTjuAYgegJ3/Yh52wQqI OVdkgiDkLiNeT4qWGarkbL23EHPum8SZX4+q1utxdF3RhnLZPsBCWBEnOGKG86NM HmvtxfPEfPTOl7zv/WvQVy/wvdSqGJO8MMoUrXGALVW3e0ZAcIZJ3RuDR+U84UoJ 7lzFRY4VM+/uIb12rJHk/+qvXC55/k3aoBDLarVWpAoho3+DJsnDbwdH3Hvx28cL IRhJhj9Mz2H/kLemZcK52aLiRO+Mep3Z3IQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdeltddguddujecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeigfetveehveevffehledtueekieeikeeufeegudfgfeeghfdulefgfeev ledvveenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <867afb91-e484-91bc-7fbb-8616f72d9cf5@gutov.dev> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:47:01 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <83jzyefuq1.fsf@gnu.org> <837cuefjgr.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <837cuefjgr.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.1 (--) On 14/04/2023 20:43, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Regarding the currently proposed user option, does it make sense to you >> to have such option that decides whether package-install upgrades >> built-ins? Whereas one can always upgrade a built-in package using 'i' >> (package-menu-mark-install) in the list-packages menu, no matter the >> value of that option. I get the backward-compatibility intent, but user >> options should also do something logical from a user's point of view. > All these questions should have been raised and discussed months ago. > Then we could have done the best for the users (what that is, is still > unclear even at this point). Now it's too late, and the main factor > that will decide how Emacs 29.1 will behave in that regard is whether > the changes to implement that are safe enough to go into Emacs 29.1. We certainly dropped the ball on this. > To answer your question more specifically: yes, it does make sense to > me. The logic, so it seems, is in the eyes of the beholder, and my > eyes do see a certain logic there. Perhaps it does, and my concern is in vain. But if we ultimately decide that it has weird semantics and adds undesirable cost to improving the package further, the obsoletion-deprecation cycle has always been a pain, so I really prefer to solve these issues without adding options, when possible. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 13:49:46 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 17:49:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47540 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNYP-0005BQ-Jh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:49:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42128) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNYN-0005B7-SQ for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:49:44 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNYH-00088q-Pj; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:49:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=Y6lFOyT0QxA0KeM3bTn0h3t89BcNEfN8w5955JqK2S0=; b=iTPvNcabwjdY8lSGr4B9 AGBXtz0XZ3oQKuGUqncTreXBJk8mH9byHdfsradkaf4TrnhpyN32tiBZqJLHeur/pnh67OhWfh+Zx D8Mgn69OyqMEgjaUFL7DTFDJPX9+JyPARtoco1lNvR/N3Yb6na6eKRExsoqqH+9Tr10X/xUlKqh7v PIS4TcbjjjKj+FP8sOfrSyC0knQhvddB52XutWJ5CWVnyvzyxIh+2IKhN9jeDtWCuD8h0drrhP7gw SJa/qm0H/Kgn1i0eZQwdP/But+u5+/l0IpV2+rpSnXU1fw0K0c6aXYltRipHTcjF1Z3UrwmghwA9C Y8G7pTVafupLjg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNYH-0006Kp-AI; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:49:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:49:35 +0300 Message-Id: <835y9yfj68.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:05:30 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:05:30 +0100 > Cc: Robert Pluim , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, > Eli Zaretskii , Philip Kaludercic > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 4:52 PM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > And I think we do want to break backward compatibility here (arguably we > > even can't not break compatibility), because the Emacs<29 semantics of > > `package-install` is "broken", since it does "install&upgrade" for > > non-builtin packages but not for builtin packages: either we keep that > > semantics and compatibility is broken when packages move to/from > > builtin, or we change that semantics and compatibility is broken by the > > change in semantics :-) > > I would think it's too late in the game to break compatibility. > Naming aside package-install has certain behaviour that for a certain > set of inputs used to produce predictable things. > Now, for the same inputs it does nothing on Emacs 29. When you say "compatibility", you seem to have only one its aspect in mind: that of Eglot. But that is not the only aspect of the previous behavior, and I, at least, must consider those other aspects as well. That package-install doesn't upgrade core packages was how it behaved in past versions. In Emacs 29.1 I hope we will allow at least overriding that by user-level means, so we will be closer to your (Eglot-centric) ideal, without also breaking the other aspects of previous behavior, since there are other core packages on ELPA besides Eglot, and some of them were in that state before Emacs 29. And that is all we can reasonably do at this time, guiven how close we are to the release. > I think it should do the same thing, not only because it's > nicer for the unsuspecting user, but also because trying to > protect this user from "unintentional" upgrade of certain "unstable" > packages, as it seems to be the idea here, is a losing game > anyway, just because dependencies. "The same thing" for Eglot means "not the same thing" for other core packages. So you are in effect calling for breaking everyone else to cater only to Eglot. That is not going to happen, for more than one reason. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 13:53:30 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 17:53:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47547 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNc2-0005I0-Cy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:53:30 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53318) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNc1-0005Hn-9h for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:53:29 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNbv-0000oi-Kb; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:53:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=IaSuj88aL82AwA7cquQJru3O68H/454xCz2tydnMTrg=; b=qiQBhmImU6YP4qnivI/P U5e+QkBz2VTPbL0MwBBbVlgyWFDVuj1VdByaUjHBKxhbhRMQ/gdmGxLo69mloFRhGW/wDp91UMI1L Rh3ierX0wLUPiON1wfN/eOJZjxuyETAafhqn2XMb1UN04qZTlENKj0fxE5PyCvyzq6XVWIybAgz6b +mxW3gpTq0M+xmTO6DFYjZtHWrY3IXX86wNMWoKbsmyvWxyAjvxmaQZm9w+KT7lOrr2/radUPOJ3K GWff9iEm+Q3HtGid1vSZVk4IfotCIGozZPd9rC5YeoB/CwRL94/uLFTBCOmfGrgts3JT0CM5dl2r9 kkgz/S6hfG94UA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNbu-0006qn-Vg; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:53:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:53:21 +0300 Message-Id: <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:31:24 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:31:24 +0100 > Cc: Robert Pluim , Philip Kaludercic , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > BTW use-package also calls package-install, and > (use-package eglot :ensure t) is the number one installation form > for Eglot says google, chatGPT and 4 out of 5 bugs I get. > Unless special steps are taken there, it will likely be broken, > too. That form will no longer give users the latest Eglot starting > Emacs 29. Is there any reason Eglot that will come with Emacs 29.1 will not be the latest Eglot? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 14:00:08 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 18:00:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47566 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNiR-0005Ut-TT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:00:08 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53046) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNiQ-0005T0-GK for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:00:06 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNiJ-0002bX-IU; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:59:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=1UdDNY3nNwhjfJ1c8De1WwY5RqC5AhY8jRL6hM22tbs=; b=gdqcmpi35un2 IeHFhet5QFhdsLccTQDZnTfXLtqI0YVh7XJrWX6CwoiETwkY81+l0Yt14TlpRvYviZ3u6xfZjK03/ uXZc/I6e/OTq/TYlg5ApqcD+xFBtbYj6j0yUxN1RuH0vNwMTS6Lb2SBUW+5hHzwOHzdeA+dTrfzNS q0zs49j4XUxDZjyGaE6MfpoL/XePOm/mBKZI0NgE0BoozUzfj/YlvQjp9E+SBq3DnddybL7zou49l b0ucLfurGsOqNYGIC+o0MdC4hrLwY4EPdp8b9/oSe+ikDTFFeAnd9753DLQQiLTSZf2Z4BL1TxWOm VABEKSkMF1bLoleRq5w4PA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnNiH-0004J8-Um; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:59:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:59:55 +0300 Message-Id: <831qkmfip0.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <867afb91-e484-91bc-7fbb-8616f72d9cf5@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:47:01 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <83jzyefuq1.fsf@gnu.org> <837cuefjgr.fsf@gnu.org> <867afb91-e484-91bc-7fbb-8616f72d9cf5@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:47:01 +0300 > Cc: rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, > larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com > From: Dmitry Gutov > > I really prefer to solve these issues without adding options, when > possible. As a general principle, I cannot agree more, of course. But we are not talking in general here, and have some unique constraints as well. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 14:27:04 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 18:27:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47599 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnO8V-0006FC-O7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:27:04 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:48625) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnO8S-0006Eg-Ed for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:27:01 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54A1D240234 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:26:54 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681496814; bh=fIffgB6hQhNvc2EqkyQlO9AkiGhU2kSe25XXQJuAs1Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=VEdSj46vNOL5O+m1/oTDWDR42dWj5tcl9HSoa6x5/+UtmDxZfLKDRBxN2s0ugEkDk zC55r6NDaMKaW5vH43e0VlGAknLNCHVW2e5i9Bd2BkR1anu2iBnIP5mtxBx+tSt0/J UBuLggm84bi8OWORplWe0MLwoJlT049oeprvIGqb8ESciHxgble1Xi3eQI25mLKr7V ySJi4+2de57CelO39hGLtczQB85210Stwd+0kMPsyoOPxJ92FKZtPXVNCBVJ2blLGv 4HNGXS5AjkZF1hD4RFSj16wLKA755gJCPOGgT0gYjQzJkEHusmK7PUSycsxIqP9TcX MHbVzZZlw1fdA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PylK91QG6z6tsg; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:26:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:32:42 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <87leiupfps.fsf@posteo.net> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:27:22 +0000 Message-ID: <87cz46pbed.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Pluim , Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii 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: -3.3 (---) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 5:53=E2=80=AFPM Philip Kaludercic wrote: > >> As this issue only affects Eglot > > [Didn't other packages also make it into :core?] I made a mistake in assuming that the rest are non-user facing libraries, but there also is use-package. But since that is also a slower package, I don't think this is an emergency. >> (a package that doesn't require that >> much customisation to be used), I don't think the situation is as >> drastic as you are portraying it to be. > >> If we all try to have a cooperative, non-alarmist attitude towards >> solving the issue at hand, I am sure a suitable solution will be found. > > It's true it doesn't have many customization now, so downright > erroring is probably rare. But it's been advancing fast and > that may not always be the case. As I said Eglot 1.12 in Emacs > 29 has lots of missing functionality and even bugs that are too > risky to fix in that version. > > So I'm not being alarmist, I think. With 5 years maintainership > of this package and well over 1000 issues, I think I make a fair > assessment of user's expectations. As to being cooperative, I've > proposed 3 different patches already, answered every question about > them and proposed n other solutions. > > But I like your optimism nonetheless :-) It follows from my experience. >> Also keep in mind that I have proposed multiple patches that take >> difference approaches. Perhaps it would be of use to recapitulate them, >> and you can explain which would be satisfying and which you think >> wouldn't be as helpful: >> >> - Use `package-install' to switch from a built-in package to the version >> from ELPA >> >> - Alternatively it has to be confirmed using a prefix argument >> - Alternatively it has to be enabled using a user option >> >> - Use `package-update' (not `package-update-all') to switch from a >> built-in package to the version from ELPA >> >> (Same alternatives as above) >> >> - Have both `package-update' and `package-update-all' switch potentially >> all packages from built-in versions to ELPA versions >> >> (Same alternatives as above) >> >> - Provide a separate command to switch from a built-in version to a >> version from ELPA >> >> That should be it? > > If it's not clear yet, I want(ed) something that users can use > _regardless_ of the version of Emacs to bring Eglot to the > latest version. I want users to be able to do this easily > for obvious reasons. The prime candidate for that "something" > is M-x package-install both in its command and non-interactive > form. But if that isn't possible, the next best thing is > a 4 line eglot-update command in eglot.el which would eventually > boil down to the same (because Emacs 26/27/28 users would eventually > also get it). That idea was explicitly rejected, but I hope it > illustrates what I would prefer. > > A command and function with enduring semantics, basically, the > kind you expect from a system like Emacs. > > Any one of your or other's solutions that provide such a > command/function are most welcome. Any other that doesn', > I'm indifferent to it. Which doesn't mean "against" or "hostile". > > And of course I thank you very much for your efforts in searching > for a solution. > > Here's another solution you may want to consider. package-install > in Emacs 29 updates built-ins non-interactively always. Interactively > asks the user with a confirmation prompt. This solution would > also work. What would the confirmation prompt ask the user? > Here's yet another one. package-install like the above but, as has > been proposed, carefully vets the builtins that are subject to > from a controlled whitelist, which would include Eglot. Stefan, Dmitry > and myself have proposed some variation of this. > > Anyway, if my preference doesn't materialize, I'm going to recommend > in the manual: > > M-: (package-install (alist-get 'eglot package-archive-contents)) RET Are you sure? The `alist-get' call returns a list, since `package-archive-contents' is a map of package names to a list of package descriptors. > which works interactively and non-interactively in every version > of Emacs. It's not pretty but it's the best I have. It's better > than to write "if you have emacs 29, do this, else do that". > > Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 14:30:53 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 18:30:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47608 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOCC-0006MY-Rs for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:30:53 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f45.google.com ([209.85.161.45]:40629) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOCA-0006MK-UF for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:30:51 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f45.google.com with SMTP id k13-20020a4ad98d000000b00542416816b1so533084oou.7 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:30:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681497045; x=1684089045; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=RIARrf+q8FA4e28O35RgMkBHclyBcPAOtk0NsJx2+Qs=; b=p03w3QyBozD75oz4NBApWO43as7+niqwV9WaBrC8eFlRDOIntXEUa4RmsT/EXFPNoM oZ8LrCyKYaPUaPGvtdstDWUEIIHCqJruox+R6BMT2B5KoryUU6FIAPVK//G8gKeWObjF gGSqnbDM2lBCYrqjKqPvJeSLDuKquyB3L6vRo2V4o2rcjRwCRNFr+C99bOoK6VCI2clx G9csmhM0ULiyfqn4b1Fk42xO8Kvxpbiy7WouNpCfAxxtv1oqQC2OR3J0QItb8O5oOIsE x4zCk7Kmx6syygt3jeh8fjiObtbh+AnUkR0hdMCGmQIBXT5fWSD2UtSaNdQj5MmPqKOu TV8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681497045; x=1684089045; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RIARrf+q8FA4e28O35RgMkBHclyBcPAOtk0NsJx2+Qs=; b=WP7aTUzWYYokxnz0t2lx2xWuxKTLhKBs9HDXNNLuoe1Yrzxm7G3H8JTOaWTZ89jCvJ p7ZRkHc5aY3Ckobcac/TT2okOJBYW0t3efGIgDVqy81c56nsijI/ouz3/e4lcO+SBzKb yegp10I3fSUbt8Fg/JPSVw+80kSzYens6+3vhvZ3MRdfH7wtcjKdneQtgCpZ9IUUnK93 KcguCQIMDQ5aUDyt+bKULAbAC6jEt8nm1HfqbDPC+joAshRPiLhj9BOETylTcX68Ue5t SlJu5nt8fCVQR5HjPUB24KGluzztvxdYh+/+vQYcMZd888FTWKA7Yf/ARV3ZsouidNtX 0FBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9e9f+055xv3ElDEEmErZ+Ns3reQCTifd2uestnE7wsrchaqUiBI OHVZ0q2H/XVi0BP8bq39krPNaj/He8CIsUDhLnU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Y3WTEvT+zTwZwy4rmk7hWIWgqa0qbdama6w+OQrMngwo8R8PTMDj8JCGLlDpg697VaVlX3sbxY2BJTVh3dmdo= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:b80b:0:b0:541:f929:272d with SMTP id g11-20020a4ab80b000000b00541f929272dmr3369869oop.1.1681497045066; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:30:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <835y9yfj68.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <835y9yfj68.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:32:40 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 6:49=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > I think it should do the same thing, not only because it's > > nicer for the unsuspecting user, but also because trying to > > protect this user from "unintentional" upgrade of certain "unstable" > > packages, as it seems to be the idea here, is a losing game > > anyway, just because dependencies. > > "The same thing" for Eglot means "not the same thing" for other core > packages. So you are in effect calling for breaking everyone else to > cater only to Eglot. That is not going to happen, for more than one > reason. > when you say "compatibility", you seem to have only one its aspect in > mind: that of Eglot. But that is not the only aspect of the previous > behavior, and I, at least, must consider those other aspects as well. You seem to be worried about "everyone else" typing, say, M-x package-insta= ll RET seq RET and getting an updated 'seq' as a result. OK, but who does this and why, in your opinion? And who has `(package-install seq)` in their config and why? And won't they get the same updated 'seq' "accidentally" if they install anything else that depends on newer seq, which is likely a lot of non-core packages and likely to grow? I just can't see these "other aspects", i.e. who or whose use cases you wish to protect with multiple user knobs to get a razor thin level of protection. But even if these people and use cases did exist, you're still plainly misrepresenting my position by writing that I'm "calling for breaking" them. I even proposed making a simple whitelist of packages that have migrated from outside core to core. And I've proposed confirmation prompts for the interactive calls. And others have proposed blacklists. These things are trivial to implement in Elisp. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 14:38:09 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 18:38:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47618 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOJE-0006XO-Nc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:38:08 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f175.google.com ([209.85.167.175]:38723) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOJC-0006Ws-Bm for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:38:06 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f175.google.com with SMTP id t23so4274148oiw.5 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681497480; x=1684089480; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=g+Tgk73rZsDuGN1yDr5xJuu0BZ2aZ6q1vOUOg1t5Ads=; b=mZ/sy0ntZWBvO5nS2q3sZxftxelD+wxpbT+2q4nmqxlaesNfpo3xRA3RdE7OKfO/On rxnSBlhqivDumSh8CsCkenl1U8WmThavyvMHO9iulhN425BJ/MvC3xoC/5BJ11yZbyAv GjP5U5Ckw+gTxerSAe10G73usJrBe4AndkQeXnVwPeuuDyuoChm4RQPCqquwLFGlz+NG qJE5xETXbQsnZ/KyQORzq4KBK1uoEhSt084ADdwpJaDysochBDySRlzGLib+Mu6jE0OR CUh77Ucz7RnacqijQPhdyV2Sn2Au9tn3Ez36e9mt0KpppOzxPNbviFpb+m7OWfQxMQj6 QQpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681497480; x=1684089480; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=g+Tgk73rZsDuGN1yDr5xJuu0BZ2aZ6q1vOUOg1t5Ads=; b=gGNqeAMVatcLSe5wP7zZlnGHz4R4yT2uzwv3lLt8qYJrUZbdYl5w0Xard2Zfj6Iyjy swFm0L13XMiSTeLa7MkoL865w5o8ByuEj0VNdopXrBqPuYcf1yyZFCCYWkuDdoF0U892 47kAoiS6QPBdUC2+rVrP9dBw8yYdsiURfsWh6StO/9bdcO8835YV0jDHRdGI3w+vAKt3 dCEuVZuUS/VTr4i1plMgiHibg+D/O6WhkX9nlmWz+0p5QMQDPCVow1tbsrOdspOMXYym 4MGYVE6sxFeijLV37PjIrxE1Z2ysq5q0ctU9N0zoMGJgkLyBBzRuTE6XHwSI3sho/eR1 4ZqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dxUHh1MDWAsd9gn8m05yhfP6++c9zT2QRZUztBcKqagNpiiHOk dWk78lvrFcQ9aEbmZDBdpZjva6upS7ET5QXlGYg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aWdcpOPgV0kqKthnu75L23/VaS7GT3cKFQeXZHvYG3dVTd7w/4Jg3QmhqdJdQ+uI9Z2z/GDC71K7GaA2qrhPY= X-Received: by 2002:aca:917:0:b0:386:a109:57c8 with SMTP id 23-20020aca0917000000b00386a10957c8mr1408339oij.5.1681497480701; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:38:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <87leiupfps.fsf@posteo.net> <87cz46pbed.fsf@posteo.net> In-Reply-To: <87cz46pbed.fsf@posteo.net> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:39:56 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Philip Kaludercic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Pluim , Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii 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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 7:26=E2=80=AFPM Philip Kaludercic wrote: > > Here's another solution you may want to consider. package-install > > in Emacs 29 updates built-ins non-interactively always. Interactively > > asks the user with a confirmation prompt. This solution would > > also work. > > What would the confirmation prompt ask the user? "Are you sure you want to install Foo which is [also|now] a built-in package in Emacs 29?" > Are you sure? The `alist-get' call returns a list, since > `package-archive-contents' is a map of package names to a list of > package descriptors. Yeah, probably needs a cdr or car there for good measure. Great. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 14:42:47 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 18:42:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47624 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnONj-0006e9-Cl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:42:47 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:35750) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnONg-0006dv-QK for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:42:45 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-183f4efa98aso29119860fac.2 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:42:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681497759; x=1684089759; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=SO79KatGSRO6vvKs2wl6MuS4h2oMo3r03eMnkSPp2hk=; b=SDeraHiiRqTrBvLEk/V2es5Gs05peN0g1jXIBzBPj9c7gL1tZJ+mpjy8jAbHf0RlfD yLxxpptnRJZH8OxW2kzdv7lCV8QTveCL1Tqp4dRfSwcnY3h8E5oPHMADUhO+A4zLIhH8 5caiQmR4sZhG2+/7mj7trelyT14fpuEDcIQrlP/rN5wJoRBNYeX3oEuBXehCqcqyoezZ 7P93Mm/Y+QO3ZC1dGeNSA8khI09n2gbgHGsaty4EfFHwG2UE1bcEnfFMPHd6fovz0314 M+yfFXlHwVfV66qCeVSUISiioX6abTlXL3oEamnDc+v6CGBEBHSamDbMkwaF9WCS9ANc PF5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681497759; x=1684089759; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SO79KatGSRO6vvKs2wl6MuS4h2oMo3r03eMnkSPp2hk=; b=Jc15fcIdzaYIx83K3t6QQNrHG1OPY3OKMl0+15dtZIupYLEZ9PP/BLO9JJ8jjGTVia cvFbK+UehvW/lGunJQQwd+WLs7tn+5c1B8WSVfn28YqcnDRrC0OZTepBCI+wWzk3IZ0i gIJBYU7A67bQR28e1Se10Yq+JKWl4XqHC0usLD2i68tXWzIdDiyOCjBFk6wu/p2HckjB RY4eFFjBqBon/y6eZj5ffsGEnoxuun4cwELod4Iv5sz/12KuJZkw9Prl8l2hfgr5L5XS vGjb+ptavKpivQOcOdpiFMw99PVBxDgoEkg8VFdzfOasw3VXfnimMSc6R+tat9oVl+zl a/CA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9d3Xd6XiJS46JsNUNjbBuK6pwI69MJm7BTd7TH9q1kmbJ8DmGyw KMiXdWrhNlIyaRf++SjraWkrlFMcIR/OUTXipiI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350a3LO+hCnShDGlhXkf25oy2Z6fYCElaO6mzgJXoTWrjYccqD9pPgV8rtJRAvnhW/NKL8+tXvX8x4KRgemt4+p8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:34b:b0:187:8ee8:5f5b with SMTP id n11-20020a056870034b00b001878ee85f5bmr3306927oaf.5.1681497759208; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:42:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:44:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 6:53=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:31:24 +0100 > > Cc: Robert Pluim , Philip Kaludercic , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > > Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontre= al.ca > > > > BTW use-package also calls package-install, and > > (use-package eglot :ensure t) is the number one installation form > > for Eglot says google, chatGPT and 4 out of 5 bugs I get. > > Unless special steps are taken there, it will likely be broken, > > too. That form will no longer give users the latest Eglot starting > > Emacs 29. > > Is there any reason Eglot that will come with Emacs 29.1 will not be > the latest Eglot? Yes, it's not the latest Eglot already. Eglot has been getting features complex features and bugfixes in master that I haven't backported. Eglot with Emacs 29.1 will be 1.12+simple bugfixes. So if you're offline or don't like ELPA at all or are on sshing to a machine, you can still have a decent LSP experience (well provided you install a LSP server). Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 14:49:26 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 18:49:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47629 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOUA-0006t5-99 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:49:26 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46724) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOU8-0006so-AO for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:49:25 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOU1-0005yb-CY; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:49:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=Nj8erG0idqsS6GyKQTin3FoWg/Llcshtzv2pl9BtEdg=; b=lHkdzYW2Tlw8Yga+BpfY u2WBzUVq8cMMyU970idYoOiwaRLaexu5A+KkdJOF7asI9mxejY7djbkKX3QseJlIE7TFX/2xhw93p 6l/2iCDCqrm3VQMj6L1r+OjjUXBufz8kFWXwHlXMs8JjH7qJTJqVsLucPZ3X5A4njBoFiccKj6/xW y9llEYVQxbq3FX0p5AcBXVm5Xi+Q+SQAkG2pzOag9YFm3hzpvQFKzGZVDdgRjq5bLFoz1rrwg514Z vTsUOOFdhFQIVqg25nKcQTZSqtmrS5p2nv7Ld5IIqNN4LJBG6pCANVa5O+yIccNWvSXR/FTy91oB/ YnSFB48CBGoZtA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOU0-0005B7-5e; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:49:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 21:49:14 +0300 Message-Id: <83zg7ae1ud.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:32:40 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <835y9yfj68.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:32:40 +0100 > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org, philipk@posteo.net > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 6:49 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > when you say "compatibility", you seem to have only one its aspect in > > mind: that of Eglot. But that is not the only aspect of the previous > > behavior, and I, at least, must consider those other aspects as well. > > You seem to be worried about "everyone else" typing, say, M-x package-install > RET seq RET and getting an updated 'seq' as a result. That, too. But also everything else. Any incompatible change of behavior can potentially break someone's workflow. > OK, but who does this and why, in your opinion? And who has > `(package-install seq)` in their config and why? And won't they get > the same updated 'seq' "accidentally" if they install anything else > that depends on newer seq, which is likely a lot of non-core > packages and likely to grow? I don't know. But we did have core packages that were also on ELPA before Emacs 29, and people did get along with that. So much so that I don't recall any complaints about this, definitely not complaints that claimed package.el is as badly broken as you seem to represent. > But even if these people and use cases did exist, you're still > plainly misrepresenting my position by writing that I'm "calling > for breaking" them. I said "in effect calling for breaking them". You need to realize this might be the outcome of what you are requesting, even if your intentions are benign. > I even proposed making a simple whitelist of packages that have > migrated from outside core to core. And I've proposed confirmation > prompts for the interactive calls. And others have proposed > blacklists. These things are trivial to implement in Elisp. They are not trivial enough to be considered for emacs-29. On master, sure, feel free to install such changes, if the others agree. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 14:51:44 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 18:51:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47634 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOWN-00070z-TK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:51:44 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50278) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOWL-00070n-OS for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:51:42 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOWG-0006hk-AF; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:51:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=TwMeGZNK1spNdlsboukCYDqcWDeiUwjoUHxxz/E3n8Y=; b=e8zCE5N9ge4ie1aUy+hR QO2SUTWAD0VuaIffqaiYbNNby0CZuScCXSjKSu+2m5eJw5HrMHH8NQcGAXeby2iRZPB72vRjAaSDP gYz6kXGP9OW4rUImARtJj1vxyeqfpLrY4T3qiGOlN0vmD2GG8xNzUNfBp3iSdJfPe8N9e/Qtuikwd rl1d+WJL7eM10Yb1QpoWutoLwZYfdEFT0atkzOKAhwgh+Z2rGmz7LyOAaGHCjAXD6uQKY2dPr1x/3 X7yCh6CJgIx8I3PIV81sDiZCGIBX5FLCHUoO7qMaUGHqouE/Z3zLb/nf1U2E511LsEMYGTd6AKdUa CM2GTLT0bZLrXA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOWF-0005Ry-QW; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:51:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 21:51:33 +0300 Message-Id: <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:44:35 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:44:35 +0100 > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 6:53 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > Is there any reason Eglot that will come with Emacs 29.1 will not be > > the latest Eglot? > > Yes, it's not the latest Eglot already. Eglot has been getting features > complex features and bugfixes in master that I haven't backported. Why not? More generally, why does it make sense not to have in Emacs the latest stable version of every core package at the time of the release? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:01:44 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:01:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47643 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOg3-0007L8-F1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:01:43 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f49.google.com ([209.85.160.49]:37505) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOg0-0007Ku-V9 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:01:42 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1879edfeff5so5822619fac.4 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:01:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681498895; x=1684090895; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=467KQmFeZzcczccpXltiQTwfFsdBZ3bK4KCekXx35AY=; b=mwErbNiMJAkiltiIa1lAeaj/JfOp6LB3VPod5LiDJRp2rY0qmlmpdRarkjjOv2grQt 5r7Il3g2Mg2Ha3yqeRmN+8Fl8Hhs9GuM+WOZZWael0umwTj3g8Z4NQ1jFYd4ELxGws2B ocf+atXJZOkVWp5aMi64W6uUpkD6vsLBRfoiw4444m7kOGqrIzSK0kd0ql6zm3HghqGp MsTU5PE+uNeLZwS653qB96eFTHM7pUjPcpFwhnMezfrIkxE2scz2j50e1MBOMcdIHp4W l3vGnEofitUvB+jioWkdyaMYLr6uXMBy0ojpJmNAn/lpfDaG469VmRUvdjV3w7BEsNV2 IUrw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681498895; x=1684090895; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=467KQmFeZzcczccpXltiQTwfFsdBZ3bK4KCekXx35AY=; b=jVmCq4wXJkUlPZwSLl1RcJGcjHB1U7nfK8EdBPhZdfHnwVIBzLIC8WJqmH8jMSQGUh De1rQ+9vFPHyLPgjc8+t4ynOZoRYnCBe77o3pld5zDQOklGGox8oWoY5KAgiSQ90MWIY XCYOpbPXkpJH0ywFPCQV9AvYarE39AmMamo08AHpz/j3OTSjfB2q5qaFGQlj4A7B5N7j mXmAL1hlnbUHncqizNREJdcJRmpqA9BYqxJuPWap1L2Nf1ZEyy02Q0Zb9QBwbFKNWu6q 142ZLFAuQEAfWgQlPemMJA3HicaXGZNb6EMIcyK5sW1lP8MqazcI6+wR5LfvUTc8G0yt lylQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ekBP6CtLVIac9FYd21Rg75F3yEIlfJV13GzWEYD7KOj9G2nDgJ 0wJKx0f5wgaUtd+yJWlSJRhIT+YpMle1psBj1VI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350agkKk4hPRQj7lnCI7IWPTsqiqjbPyWYf3vUjSuMqY+vmp9FujN7ei2SZPSgEpmUJJaIG9jGpzY0JYsPX+fG7s= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:8a22:b0:184:2097:e64f with SMTP id p34-20020a0568708a2200b001842097e64fmr3372381oaq.5.1681498895191; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:01:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <835y9yfj68.fsf@gnu.org> <83zg7ae1ud.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83zg7ae1ud.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:03:31 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 7:49=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:32:40 +0100 > > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > > larsi@gnus.org, philipk@posteo.net > > > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 6:49=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wr= ote: > > > > > when you say "compatibility", you seem to have only one its aspect in > > > mind: that of Eglot. But that is not the only aspect of the previous > > > behavior, and I, at least, must consider those other aspects as well. > > > > You seem to be worried about "everyone else" typing, say, M-x package-i= nstall > > RET seq RET and getting an updated 'seq' as a result. > > That, too. But also everything else. Any incompatible change of > behavior can potentially break someone's workflow. Of course. But what is this "everything else" pandora's box that the solution I'm proposing unleashes? I just don't see the connection. > > OK, but who does this and why, in your opinion? And who has > > `(package-install seq)` in their config and why? And won't they get > > the same updated 'seq' "accidentally" if they install anything else > > that depends on newer seq, which is likely a lot of non-core > > packages and likely to grow? > > I don't know. But we did have core packages that were also on ELPA > before Emacs 29, and people did get along with that. So much so that > I don't recall any complaints about this, definitely not complaints > that claimed package.el is as badly broken as you seem to represent. I think it's simply and clearly because there weren't any non-core packages that migrated to core before. Were there? Certainly none with as fast a release cycle like Eglot's. > > But even if these people and use cases did exist, you're still > > plainly misrepresenting my position by writing that I'm "calling > > for breaking" them. > > I said "in effect calling for breaking them". You need to realize > this might be the outcome of what you are requesting, even if your > intentions are benign. I _am_ realizing that, and even if I think the risks are minuscule, I'm providing solutions that mitigate them. And -- responsibly, I think -- pointing to the fact that the risk surface is much larger than you may think it is. > > I even proposed making a simple whitelist of packages that have > > migrated from outside core to core. And I've proposed confirmation > > prompts for the interactive calls. And others have proposed > > blacklists. These things are trivial to implement in Elisp. > > They are not trivial enough to be considered for emacs-29. On master, > sure, feel free to install such changes, if the others agree. Are you saying it's OK to propose this blacklist/whitelist idea? I will work and prepare that patch if you promise to at least look at the code, follow the logic with me and consider the patch for backporting if it's as safe as relying on a simple `(if (memq package package-safely-upgradeable-builtins) ...)` If you don't want to do that, I'm not going to propose it, because that in effect means I'm adding code that will only have any effect in the Emacs 30 release, and the Emacs 29 will be a very odd release in this aspect for several years to come. And this is an even worse outcome. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:14:56 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:14:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47649 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOsq-0007da-27 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:14:56 -0400 Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.230]:51255) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOso-0007dO-4Q for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:14:54 -0400 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CFD582321; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:14:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681499689; x=1681503289; bh=y0IkRKsO3e96jdVS7OWdvg1QaWg2ABuFOa+ IVoLkw7Q=; b=fyqWIDr2wibLlMisBFkTVAlPuSf24E/T7xivrmbYU2T+kcErUuQ BUK9dluXhzt0svPRHkjkfUEOo6VmccvT4/0f1t26SBHvloaTxhn5noBfMwQo8MDS ELu/kAxzR7ohou93i9bOCwQ6NxUC4CMZjZTnVKYXiRVzrk7QIE2oKlfS/ovbvurg 0Yl/KLXhVjfy0KpPbyzd2+Ur95daVg7ZXwzR4UGkceBjKyG9Q3ydvXPJWOXcte8c RRGRViAsHQes/0u0FezXfPV9I88B9a6wa/TVMC82IDqvy4RYuk9PPay5w07fkAeB UqA/ob44SVQL96CerMfwCDokdN9S18js75w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681499689; x=1681503289; bh=y0IkRKsO3e96jdVS7OWdvg1QaWg2ABuFOa+ IVoLkw7Q=; b=D8kt6NyTBspeJokbezxIB3sH/CVVFkIGWnrEIJLWF9Iv05VOcy5 PlRX+R7hXno1u8Dh8L0O+nNJraV4FelQPf4TOChgJMt7hwPmjkPCcs8RNfaLNayZ vWoYK9yeyFh7AErAnLKWXiBXDnDcU/PI+MGQ3ywXVbftty18HTYFPkajU2qXSNTu jG0mnisan7Jd3MlcgehPk7coz6VLSIOBuNz9j2tekA29/Ze2ct7UrluEDNrbLdpm azqHvNfYfe+Uy8M4g2/IaH7beLUQDPLPdOnUIqgfMH+rH79XUz8ptaxmGUMLVvD9 jKAnEF4HNmuWfm6/NOgAnASf5Tq6wB6w5nw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdeltddgudefhecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeigfetveehveevffehledtueekieeikeeufeegudfgfeeghfdulefgfeev ledvveenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <55c24919-a707-28dd-811b-10db5317c271@gutov.dev> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:14:44 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii , =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.1 (--) On 14/04/2023 21:51, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > More generally, why does it make sense not to have in Emacs the latest > stable version of every core package at the time of the release? Same reason we're now arguing about adding a simple change to package.el (which is also a core package)? Stability? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:18:33 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:18:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47654 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOwK-0007jd-O4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:18:33 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:41885) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOwI-0007jO-E7 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:18:30 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f47.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1878504c22aso9574204fac.8 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:18:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681499904; x=1684091904; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=NBUmg3MLEe6Zxp81PE3SrmwRqSYNZtqcq61mymPkke4=; b=j2uXagWWd6hkqViceyKlV8RTmVgmQnSREy6Z15l2/s2W9yMaquZuNY5CC1uhSPiAX2 DfoCqz6YhZkcv2LQd5zVY6qSJJsErr87Mnr7wsxgjnXquaOsDXeRyAZ0D67jvKMHvzWA RivG39hdYpNb8PBFfAykMD7O9yUrWjG0lA5zTduurBMVP7TwgX8QHS87SgTQGOpamZy/ 3zqAWq2rVr5Rc33QAeMmZuS5zq2njpeaqdh0JPksdIjmM5WEIn4+uvp/X3KBZlscvZNX l6Am79O0tUgwcssTAJPM8pbeIjpD01JIzF5pJKbIjoB1eD2EMbiwrDiG2losm5VMWm// DxKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681499904; x=1684091904; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NBUmg3MLEe6Zxp81PE3SrmwRqSYNZtqcq61mymPkke4=; b=lz3WyRDlTaCS1zcfoZstD+EF4xhLxjKZvXEqiBm4sx8il5Q85pFaobY8RjfFbjX9cG CfRc5QfWu42f3zQx+al0tpOqFojG+5ounzyT9/d6bnbNsIJcR3rhTufbBgj2f64vLUvv Hv11aOTEHkrFuLC05xA7KdHjb5MY10E1tN3kCaOBzEul1SRzeNz+5f+csO+yBrl0blcT 3lGr64iPL9/hBA14rhZ8mjiSx4OLjYEMD9WPxGgnX5Af8FHXvQ/gABDOkB6sRwVnHu8/ H10w4tSMlrnZztcwktv62FE5Vp2ZGLFC1IPNObnVRnEBrdC4bU50l2+ToYWNCIq4V6eq qWCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9caBR9utBc0NVUFtnnxuIjQdUMb5/dz59i2mDESaBOn5MWbiAC9 16UTQVSiL0+2cp6+MoYCXjw2Rkoa/edwM3rEYJc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZuAaMhAkujy961tSAViu7aF7Do+3kUoujRMuJyWe2IWsod8W70sKu4gRrxgAdtQFRLrZLBmNVEDf+KwNJzsCo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:113:b0:187:9bf2:af63 with SMTP id y19-20020a056871011300b001879bf2af63mr2421647oab.5.1681499904683; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:18:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:20:20 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 7:51=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Why not? > > More generally, why does it make sense not to have in Emacs the latest > stable version of every core package at the time of the release? Well, my answer to that would be: for the same reason it makes sense for like new features not to go into Emacs release branches after they have been cut. The Eglot release 1.14 is not as stable as 1.12.29. It has new features. Also a recent bugfix in commit a74403adda0 is quite complex and I'm cautiously waiting for feedback. Other simple bugfixes have been backported. So I'm not much different than most maintainers in that aspect, I suppose. I also think stock Emacs releases should be very stable, despite what you may think from my stance on this particular matter :-) But if someone types M-x install-something they should get what they ask for. If they want to be 100% safe, they just shouldn't invoke commands that download, compile and evaluate code. Notwithstanding this personal opinion, I underline again that it _is_ possible to craft a simple, emacs-29-safe modification, to the package-install function that is even more cautious to download certain types of things. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:18:46 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:18:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47658 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOwY-0007k7-4b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:18:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56504) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOwW-0007jr-4b for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:18:45 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOwP-0004B8-KB; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:18:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=6QWyZkiV+6SpygrtZVbYIqsr+Op9QT8XXeaJ3V9zzBM=; b=gZ1E4IkDfqSZI4jS+EGd mJQBLjr8P8s9hUxGa4u3cy6qmAUyJu5LG8e3sC44Gl40SKr8yH5crNW6eq+T99bLmOINHWT3Aw91F BTkx9mXfo3kSHRSxLLhOTKWh3D12j6AwTYvOtRt/OgKlBzDTT6bGFeB5452qmUKlFgGAiHhE36qjY 3N0mY15vuRGyUFMHHrUJDGUh6BWyAghxaNY5cu6zR47IsTE+U5c8HDm7QIckkk+LSEYDUe1E5zRO8 uLvfBFAQFOEtV4g4Xr4lg/P0tezce0SIZOIIZaxcEiFkXfiU+EeRZRYO3i5q5izAYDG9w5kBV9V4t brXR+9AUq+/cQA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOwO-0004Bz-U3; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:18:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:18:34 +0300 Message-Id: <83v8hye0hh.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:03:31 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <835y9yfj68.fsf@gnu.org> <83zg7ae1ud.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:03:31 +0100 > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org, philipk@posteo.net > > > > OK, but who does this and why, in your opinion? And who has > > > `(package-install seq)` in their config and why? And won't they get > > > the same updated 'seq' "accidentally" if they install anything else > > > that depends on newer seq, which is likely a lot of non-core > > > packages and likely to grow? > > > > I don't know. But we did have core packages that were also on ELPA > > before Emacs 29, and people did get along with that. So much so that > > I don't recall any complaints about this, definitely not complaints > > that claimed package.el is as badly broken as you seem to represent. > > I think it's simply and clearly because there weren't any non-core > packages that migrated to core before. Were there? Certainly > none with as fast a release cycle like Eglot's. You are missing the point. My point is that users of all those other core packages are used to the current situation, where package-install doesn't update the built-ins. They have workflows based on that. Those are the workflows that I don't want to risk breaking. Once the discussion with Philip runs to its completion, we _will_ have in Emacs 29.1 a way of upgrading built-ins, only not by default, but by an explicit user request. Maybe this is not ideal, but we don't have time to find out what is ideal for all those involved, and this partial solution allows to get the job done without risking to break anyone's workflow. So this is a good compromise, given the time and the constraints, at least from my POV. > > I said "in effect calling for breaking them". You need to realize > > this might be the outcome of what you are requesting, even if your > > intentions are benign. > > I _am_ realizing that, and even if I think the risks are minuscule, > I'm providing solutions that mitigate them. And -- responsibly, I > think -- pointing to the fact that the risk surface is much larger > than you may think it is. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the risks. And eventually, it is my responsibility to do this job, so my assessment of that is what counts more. I've heard all of your arguments (and also those of others), and considered all of them, and I still don't think the risk is high enough to justify the potentially-breaking changes that you propose, not on the release branch, not this late into the release cycle. > > > I even proposed making a simple whitelist of packages that have > > > migrated from outside core to core. And I've proposed confirmation > > > prompts for the interactive calls. And others have proposed > > > blacklists. These things are trivial to implement in Elisp. > > > > They are not trivial enough to be considered for emacs-29. On master, > > sure, feel free to install such changes, if the others agree. > > Are you saying it's OK to propose this blacklist/whitelist idea? For the release branch? No. For master? Yes. > I will work and prepare that patch if you promise to at least > look at the code, follow the logic with me and consider the > patch for backporting if it's as safe as relying on a simple > `(if (memq package package-safely-upgradeable-builtins) ...)` Backporting can be considered for Emacs 29.2, not before that. Hopefully, by that time we will also have more data points regarding the various uses of this, in particular with Eglot, so that our decisions will be more informed. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:19:57 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:19:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47664 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOxg-0007m2-OH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:19:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46198) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOxe-0007ln-U1 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:19:55 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOxZ-0004Qw-5B; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:19:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=kl5MIZAZGUY3jJoXnLo+qu0eVFHtW/uZvaVuh+30Axo=; b=CkP3JiZh5DEz C1or8FhOQTcmApjlE8iYy1LUZvlquLB2aVlGJPXszBfIjjntZxkd1b5BqT/+1SuVuncGktgZvUpgV wYwrQpufQrhxcxYGZeFpaddE/SowvoVUGs31+LncIWhIanp+bu2PWBDzC8CTXUhUz9b4qmoG3blb/ MBDSBB5D13pGKyxxyU75kPQ/SKYxp4yk2HigysWy4xfskLaCvNPCKGVAq8q4TKu/r6JMMd14qbVTw TqngLUZ5/FlwO4/HHuiHV0b0AT0Fk4bZmbkdWNnNwHTI0BaN2EMgqYY4Pcptsa4U5+p3O9PbVCNnr QBtLLiqPju4oNqaNHkRroQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOxY-0004Ph-Dn; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:19:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:19:47 +0300 Message-Id: <83ttxie0fg.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <55c24919-a707-28dd-811b-10db5317c271@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:14:44 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <55c24919-a707-28dd-811b-10db5317c271@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:14:44 +0300 > Cc: rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 14/04/2023 21:51, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > More generally, why does it make sense not to have in Emacs the latest > > stable version of every core package at the time of the release? > > Same reason we're now arguing about adding a simple change to package.el > (which is also a core package)? Stability? So Eglot 1.14 is not stable? Does Eglot has a stable branch on ELPA? I meant to include the latest stable release, not an unstable one. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:21:55 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:21:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47669 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOzb-0007pg-9C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:21:55 -0400 Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.230]:33675) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnOzW-0007pN-Cj for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:21:54 -0400 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53518582254; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:21:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:21:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681500105; x=1681503705; bh=1XcTM4W8zcFjBn5Xc83MW6cIHLiEmcWEAg/ Xu7ObipU=; b=J/Opqf7/1w0WcUOzACTpafWGsR9N5IGl4gG1z1C8KchjBnoKvL0 AX1EfRyCmCTHGIH8VRj4QTYlFzkgkl1jiAlYU5EyviNOmtZOrU0TzIzrajEUnwoj zmcLb8T1dGgCmOttlZWfnQMiHIh7QPhl/oy0FMGTYw9v78O3rrkLQTGYvzlVYjKo TMyuGvR/vhOYsaKWEmDBPOe9YaNaSgJ1yh8XEIV92oAJdS9BiX/l56POS4ZeNE4D YcI/yOSR2YbS0QGlOOkD9fKlfJybBXSpOISV9Lm3ytIHBnPbfjVi3mRIuhVpVIai lA97S8/R2NNUVT8Gzbfb0oPZh6qqjVPaRaA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681500105; x=1681503705; bh=1XcTM4W8zcFjBn5Xc83MW6cIHLiEmcWEAg/ Xu7ObipU=; b=kF7kCbGxG4zLIY7YYydHaLrrXT8H1ZoH5Aedmncv1Csk1riEgWD kgJQmR0U6/FambAjeb0nzMVS/K6HBNWEDXXXtssJMxyBqRouHOl4RXiExOGzfZFy RiDMfUGMvvj3sGF8MHoMPX+twPPWhpAy4R36kbGg/VWagX4/dpWVp1vqJwIugTDY t3mjlSvC7LEcntuB0UXk52yOpZCMriacAvYDODNGR2sWOSNDn0SRTzMwL2DARvyi niYTvE4G9020cf6ht8yI8/+DNXt4OlZYmdg9Ddj6aH34V3/LfT9qzqdx3kgzEhHf tGbvkNLo3/w2ruSRH6Fkz4rgDRtNELOnPIw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdeltddgudefjecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeigfetveehveevffehledtueekieeikeeufeegudfgfeeghfdulefgfeev ledvveenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <08d2627c-a48b-80d2-fdaf-9e551db4a049@gutov.dev> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:21:41 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <55c24919-a707-28dd-811b-10db5317c271@gutov.dev> <83ttxie0fg.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83ttxie0fg.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.1 (--) On 14/04/2023 22:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > So Eglot 1.14 is not stable? Does Eglot has a stable branch on ELPA? All Eglot development is led on master. > I meant to include the latest stable release, not an unstable one. We consider tagged releases (ones that bump the version header) as "stable" ones, and all intermediate commits as "unstable". Those are not the same kind of "stable" as Emacs releases, obviously. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:28:49 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:28:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47730 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP6G-00083K-IU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:28:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56916) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP6F-000837-7x for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:28:47 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP68-0001jz-QX; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:28:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=4ZU3ILEre8XE7ns3I7pCoe3VTx2MDoYwNs3IEQFhn/0=; b=BopW6dF6Zsm8voG9au4h hnSYjMNoIaCmGt19L2BW8F8vRiTJYgRsPFcHemOJ6uUF8DHR3XUC8NY1SNQO31qJKfo2zejUhReRc AubGQTPGGi9u7XwpzEi3G46sngYlv2shVCQPsHaKRdmMKGQ5ZWVJ5ywIPISeuEZ1e6HIapzHvjq2n jw93Nqs3rZA1tqjg1JTjG+2f/wWkkMdYSjK8/PnZt93Njf6mmyPmaqdlRtypRFcFDAW3vGzSj0JhQ FPA8CENZyta4efTocQnsE0KeBdbtJDeVgFM51xpO4DOzrzg6JiPinQ+FLUCSNldxXoHFrRfa6Jcr/ akTYPDrmlTDwzg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP5i-0000O8-PA; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:28:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:28:12 +0300 Message-Id: <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:20:20 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:20:20 +0100 > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 7:51 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > The Eglot release 1.14 is not as stable as 1.12.29. It has new features. > Also a recent bugfix in commit a74403adda0 is quite complex and > I'm cautiously waiting for feedback. Other simple bugfixes have > been backported. So you don't recommend that users who want a stable Eglot upgrade to 1.14? If so, why is it a problem that package-install by default doesn't update built-in packages? Users who want the cutting edge of Eglot, and don't mind some instability, can always switch to the master branch of Emacs, where we are free to change package-install to upgrade core packages by default. > But if someone types M-x install-something they should get what > they ask for. If they want to be 100% safe, they just shouldn't > invoke commands that download, compile and evaluate code. The logic should be consistent. Emacs 29 is the stable branch of Emacs, so it should come with the latest stable Eglot. If that is Eglot 1.12.29, then the fact that package-install won't upgrade it to 1.14 is consistent with the stability of Eglot's versions. If, OTOH, you think that it's imperative to allow _all_ users of Eglot with Emacs 29 to upgrade to Eglot 1.14 (and 1.15, 1.16, etc., when those become available), then we should release Emacs 29 with 1.14. > Notwithstanding this personal opinion, I underline again that > it _is_ possible to craft a simple, emacs-29-safe modification, > to the package-install function that is even more cautious to > download certain types of things. Philip presented such a safe modification, and we are in the final stages of discussing its details, before it will be installed. So yes, it is possible. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:29:46 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:29:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47740 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP7C-00085e-49 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:29:46 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52]:46916) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP7A-00085S-EI for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:29:45 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f52.google.com with SMTP id f7-20020a4ab647000000b0054101f316c7so6219315ooo.13 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:29:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681500578; x=1684092578; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=OhM1RkG5pIIFk77a1NP6WM2TCdPjVW1PPNP11/Grxck=; b=CzlWVZcnYkbCBo6NfO3i/9z/L857HTQDXSzO/i3sh0TMOClIDXWJuK+cIAWpzZZg2n DB6T7vE8co/uOA21R6QETcNm+Ss72O9Tt7zr5+aMSvyUT89eP+uOE87FISCoeYFdAGyy 9/Gu3JjaJwSl5/X4YHacYlugYAsY+/8eATrUt1J4l2wwG+7pa8PUxuYG8kXgG/+OzfFC /rW3dNhpmgv/+RHYszHBFgTCb51Nl5gNRXilzgb4Qj8TFFQAU2pR1itkTP/w9Cb1viQr e5Q/KHwUf33DNa1XYNu4vf/cbXCnkY1kK1ixzGSaneIh0xE7XB44haihIT/jYtNHlMT7 LWXA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681500578; x=1684092578; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OhM1RkG5pIIFk77a1NP6WM2TCdPjVW1PPNP11/Grxck=; b=MkO704nZVP3QMKmHWYyMIHEaYbTAfG9qxclNeAsonsPoNzHJRpk03sd1rPGducnv42 Cqf4yjdfVfLLKCsjQJYgpA9MFRB8Df+OscFEkB5f4ePZ3Xi8MVNgO7upEF7t/fEDNQR9 Gskx68esRWCUHMLCMsxHZnMci7GFZ8GVqdD60JvcyqxkYnNhDqsfQ+Jc1TO6GXUXuuwg AwrSl794Y607Q2Ee6IxwCUtnKEx2xYLx8gNN81xU5eDEcjJHCqWHVE9qlsQkeKqC/Efl i57WqBL9ga4/Kl33kxwAzBreTXZhA9ijwbBDR1DlfIEiwpvzV5Re+Tqsb2DR3z5D93dZ EzmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cH9/Jd4g+Yw+vZ79p6856sICZXulHR5M7btXWhX59J6xAgTten o3b8hooA5gqMX5377bhOx3rtZn6VJIDC+w8ZBWs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZZsbQDG7G1EwrG3irCtqTt8JnQAUflSVJBCSFhuV5xFlUE8z/NJqpBxcFz4rWJfQmDtXcjkJcqNSxFHoePQcw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6820:8c2:b0:538:d154:cbc2 with SMTP id bi2-20020a05682008c200b00538d154cbc2mr2283842oob.1.1681500578706; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:29:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <835y9yfj68.fsf@gnu.org> <83zg7ae1ud.fsf@gnu.org> <83v8hye0hh.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83v8hye0hh.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:31:34 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 8:18=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:03:31 +0100 > > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > > larsi@gnus.org, philipk@posteo.net > > > > > > OK, but who does this and why, in your opinion? And who has > > > > `(package-install seq)` in their config and why? And won't they ge= t > > > > the same updated 'seq' "accidentally" if they install anything else > > > > that depends on newer seq, which is likely a lot of non-core > > > > packages and likely to grow? > > > > > > I don't know. But we did have core packages that were also on ELPA > > > before Emacs 29, and people did get along with that. So much so that > > > I don't recall any complaints about this, definitely not complaints > > > that claimed package.el is as badly broken as you seem to represent. > > > > I think it's simply and clearly because there weren't any non-core > > packages that migrated to core before. Were there? Certainly > > none with as fast a release cycle like Eglot's. > > You are missing the point. My point is that users of all those other > core packages are used to the current situation, where package-install > doesn't update the built-ins. They have workflows based on that. > Those are the workflows that I don't want to risk breaking. The only workflows that traverse this use case I can think of: 1. they routinely invoke a useless M-x package-install RET seq RET , it prints "already installed" and they breathe a daily sigh of relief. 2. they have `(package-install 'seq)` somewhere in their init file which runs daily and does nothing. > Once the discussion with Philip runs to its completion, we _will_ have > in Emacs 29.1 a way of upgrading built-ins, only not by default, but > by an explicit user request. Maybe this is not ideal, but we don't > have time to find out what is ideal for all those involved, and this > partial solution allows to get the job done without risking to break > anyone's workflow. So this is a good compromise, given the time and > the constraints, at least from my POV. There is already this way, that was never in question. Package menu, M-: or anything else, it's not _that_ hard. But it's a shame that the canonical use-package recipe for Eglot (or for use-package itself) it will break. Looking at the patches, it seems, from my POV, that using a prefix argument and an extra customization option is much, much more complicated than a simple whitelist or blacklist that the user needn't ever see. > > I _am_ realizing that, and even if I think the risks are minuscule, > > I'm providing solutions that mitigate them. And -- responsibly, I > > think -- pointing to the fact that the risk surface is much larger > > than you may think it is. > I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the risks. And > eventually, it is my responsibility to do this job, so my assessment > of that is what counts more. I've heard all of your arguments (and > also those of others), and considered all of them, and I still don't > think the risk is high enough to justify the potentially-breaking > changes that you propose, not on the release branch, not this late > into the release cycle. And even though I also disagree, equally respectfully, with your assessment of the risks, and still I'm providing a solution that eliminates them totally. > > I will work and prepare that patch if you promise to at least > > look at the code, follow the logic with me and consider the > > patch for backporting if it's as safe as relying on a simple > > `(if (memq package package-safely-upgradeable-builtins) ...)` > > Backporting can be considered for Emacs 29.2, not before that. > Hopefully, by that time we will also have more data points regarding > the various uses of this, in particular with Eglot, so that our > decisions will be more informed. OK. Fair enough. If there's half a chance for 29.2 I guess I can work on it. Not today though. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:31:00 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:31:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47746 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP8N-000892-PS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:31:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55058) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP8L-00088q-Ft for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:30:57 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP8D-0002Tc-DR; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:30:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=bxCuPzRbGRxCsVaF9RGjI55kKztpMd714OeFttqOg7w=; b=ZPOXo7dstlmh J6j3OqnceiChr/FX1qtD0rENQh9aicUjR7so5glz9UxDhPghxlRGoiTJlZ3pZYeC5pHOK5m+ewZ2W FS0ctue4tcb4RFQiUpNnTQztBRguTvU/dXclCY+rSs96jnypw66WbOJsC7nqjntRL8Kzg6dZsmv7y DqmZ65WOLo9vcz6bhqT6i10v6qLmwL3OKBKNagFXe7amiKtpkCH9PB5nBMXfX+xt+p85cVrYRDHg5 jTIjWYUd24YCSnuUdseV7/RYXhxd3v0jWs89I1FHqvsfnWcaI86iJsv7XsbSB+pk17FjkQNcx95EU fcQu/1coRrdCumsT0iaGRw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP82-0003Jj-0v; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:30:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:30:26 +0300 Message-Id: <83r0smdzxp.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <08d2627c-a48b-80d2-fdaf-9e551db4a049@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:21:41 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <55c24919-a707-28dd-811b-10db5317c271@gutov.dev> <83ttxie0fg.fsf@gnu.org> <08d2627c-a48b-80d2-fdaf-9e551db4a049@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:21:41 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 14/04/2023 22:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > So Eglot 1.14 is not stable? Does Eglot has a stable branch on ELPA? > > All Eglot development is led on master. > > > I meant to include the latest stable release, not an unstable one. > > We consider tagged releases (ones that bump the version header) as > "stable" ones, and all intermediate commits as "unstable". Those are not > the same kind of "stable" as Emacs releases, obviously. So which version of Eglot is sufficiently "stable" to go with the stable version of Emacs? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:32:34 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:32:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47750 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP9u-0008BV-8Q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:32:34 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:43774) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnP9s-0008BI-4u for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:32:32 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-187a742a963so4284872fac.10 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:32:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681500746; x=1684092746; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=pynI0HYAfyg9KepGkxEQsPs0lnnaubWtx/q31s5FZ70=; b=a97/RiJonxILGImM2LnBrSv2zeT0bvkAV8HIjExpq0Mt1IXSf3HNul9dHCeh/s8vu0 vrr0nJ1/bP3+JuLusTktBN1ryVAv8uguEHaru4vpS/apvfvwF/mtn52bfBJhVKrjdQ7C GKCja4/lznBttXut9f+xmLDVi+OkxR2KkFg3bkhY6UDws1lp+rsjsHxkSYCUD04jkp/x g/ijUbngzGwYWcHMQynIvMG5GHtSliXfmj/E4TXmED/TB7Ipd7TbCAb6S3I/hX5i6dbR GT5C3uUcxQNAzelHhgHW7PqPczfPmkr6A1JGUWDM4Quc89v21UyX8axUlpX6PQVag+zR ovag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681500746; x=1684092746; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pynI0HYAfyg9KepGkxEQsPs0lnnaubWtx/q31s5FZ70=; b=fMHt63ahcERQ5nAzIOigwjDPd8YobXElZ+ZgnQTirba5q+3SHwLczksTAt4l8Gi0l3 eUGkt3IJAzTptvTjr/2eabnq+BLLVZWff6KuXkMKxOMb4nMpYoqQYiIgVmEJpfS7WG3a RTpQg9UIJtMJwANS0IEt99p+SMlz3u9dWlqg0jbx0C34JHL3B0qzbABC55KiHGaApmbE 6MIaSuObRFbsUKtqJNwSoMCdWk85VJnnNhot9b9GcfkCNRj/yYI2OU5Vc1SfrRjm/kMe nueH82jXaa7ppIdyhPDAUntvlBdJV7wGMhm+Tbn+9ilKniDno9M3hrikiMhBanvjtVfz FjDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dnVdjtwnOLnv8xWnB3kICR36JcsQL/icu4ra6pyPAL0BQh9ksB SSvQ7LwOZ1mYECVCTJ58O8KCbivnRq+4pZyhaas= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aWdI5WszZ51BAdBtPvhvrjRUz287XSwHDeJoloIM1y7j7QppI6j82PTXKYZeKuhaQxgFHbJxBpG5hrQVQsqIw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:89a3:b0:187:7874:8afa with SMTP id f35-20020a05687089a300b0018778748afamr2524578oaq.5.1681500746631; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:32:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <55c24919-a707-28dd-811b-10db5317c271@gutov.dev> <83ttxie0fg.fsf@gnu.org> <08d2627c-a48b-80d2-fdaf-9e551db4a049@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <08d2627c-a48b-80d2-fdaf-9e551db4a049@gutov.dev> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:34:22 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 8:21=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov wro= te: > > On 14/04/2023 22:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > So Eglot 1.14 is not stable? Does Eglot has a stable branch on ELPA? > > All Eglot development is led on master. > > > I meant to include the latest stable release, not an unstable one. > > We consider tagged releases (ones that bump the version header) as > "stable" ones, and all intermediate commits as "unstable". Those are not > the same kind of "stable" as Emacs releases, obviously. Exactly this. When I tag an Eglot release, I check that tests run. I run some manual tests and I come to a conclusion as to its stability. But there is no pretest or "release candidate" or anything like that. It's not feasible, I don't even know how that would work. So I make the release, watch for feedback closely the next days or weeks and fix bugs for the next release. In the interim I give people workarounds. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:33:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:33:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47755 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnPAW-0008Cm-LU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:33:12 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:55625) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnPAV-0008CX-5t for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:33:11 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87ADC2403CE for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 21:33:05 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681500785; bh=Xi8lZM3gIOqpsx1q3LYpapGnH7eTXogSj2ND576ZH3w=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=SR1QrCjYur0TmooHzBJonPUXlC3bb08oQrt8j1amWFy58HvqXVIqp+RrjKtnWY0mr aEVqBqLcMXJ9dWobRwgfnrE4ZAa3J2Ro2NUEw2sRllJl+Gob57SgKEnEBtkqzlcSt2 TZzcop20qi8TWrlg1z8Q5W1ArzjA0JXF3YDtpVxXk9ltzG23eXbarQ1WRhdhwddh6V Uwsb2FRZ0M/mUVbNlYsDoMrVO+F3x1eLLFcdAKF19paCRdQA1dJ2Sp1UlqpE3h0qd4 S/5y/cdt0EXsLC/ufwmdsedMGgL0CI8RewAl/O34WKcRXbLnYBJDv/uqU0G2StZ/1b +Z3IaFxSnd+DQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PymnX6Wdwz6tvl; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 21:33:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:39:56 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <87leiupfps.fsf@posteo.net> <87cz46pbed.fsf@posteo.net> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:33:34 +0000 Message-ID: <874jpip8c1.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Pluim , Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii 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: -3.3 (---) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 7:26=E2=80=AFPM Philip Kaludercic wrote: > >> > Here's another solution you may want to consider. package-install >> > in Emacs 29 updates built-ins non-interactively always. Interactively >> > asks the user with a confirmation prompt. This solution would >> > also work. >> >> What would the confirmation prompt ask the user? > > "Are you sure you want to install Foo which is [also|now] a built-in > package in Emacs 29?" I feel this is confusing, if a user is not familiar with the way built-in packages can be upgraded and are maintained. Perhaps instead of a simple yes-or-no-p, we could use read-multiple-choice to add some more background? >> Are you sure? The `alist-get' call returns a list, since >> `package-archive-contents' is a map of package names to a list of >> package descriptors. > > Yeah, probably needs a cdr or car there for good measure. Great. Specifically (cadr (assq 'eglot package-archive-contents)) > Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:44:14 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:44:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47759 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnPLB-0008Rt-ST for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:44:14 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:42875) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnPLA-0008Rg-6j for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:44:12 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f45.google.com with SMTP id bu14-20020a0568300d0e00b0069fab3f4cafso9298547otb.9 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:44:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681501446; x=1684093446; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=CfeJ8LtGbtpxB6iyHfFvgQwWA7jR6nZtGnHICCpvdpA=; b=lo5oalqs+36A6t9AKh7mlr9Gtd/X+QIn8kmZs8W2CX35Bk8MyzbbtJpQaueYQS705/ Ai3fI60FGscODDLkAClkRdVBluaqLwqsQiHo8tdLdZnNVVvlpW4hMWQFRTp8J/axtiQO Nj6uFylMnbdsdifQ21Vf2Nx9r7zwhyyuhdY9ON3iRINf95cJ4ry2qDixaQQu5x244XpK n6BxPbUWV1PqO/M9ZRSpL7PVhIVBg1YvK4mrnSay9trp8c2Nt4lRABHjxGgCxr7frv6U OH0euCU5PcNVEwFmBdcOcycdXjNw5V4Dz/XF9IVHkXjCuCIghiInHFNKiCaWc7per3VF JmTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681501446; x=1684093446; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CfeJ8LtGbtpxB6iyHfFvgQwWA7jR6nZtGnHICCpvdpA=; b=XEDhLFRbCOSYyWwfafb8QXCXPIqBSfa3Z8+T05fh3tSnxPJVJokqdUvZd1NuW1R5C+ aQdrGRWKtfOzoSqgsjfRvbvjeL9sk6gGZgikyhrVaPDmr/GVY3UoSQWlkLLn3r1vmngA 1COBA5v8Esbb8Jpzx8gykhOTD81C+OnNxlQSmxUz+kbR6x/kNRKRh2R8LH0Rqq4TE0GO Z0b5HwtZWZht/AhFn9bPo6z9hwMbx5D6GAUT1pIBXRV5e1ynyUDL1+pgsCixdMmXVyF3 A5f89tXdijASLn2i3nem58xUvwPTz6rBhItk7M2W9WmbNoGrKzt00IUcVZZGQPFTJSqL 3e0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9f82w0Gz/YXvx5ub0BrEFaK21yRcWIk+BTyULPQHKHrzNuTyP0J /g+pYdP1lT+WZP5LlInS7dWRUaWq2DZPhoFucA8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350a4aGnrE8xzSdiHpkmAQBmuNDExY5BMRomxX2B1bbtRECEv3FWrD62sP3sgmXN9F5j7t9rqOH9WXQ73CmoMDRY= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6217:0:b0:6a4:23d0:2b94 with SMTP id g23-20020a9d6217000000b006a423d02b94mr1797059otj.4.1681501446419; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:44:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:46:02 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 8:28=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:20:20 +0100 > > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 7:51=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wr= ote: > > > > The Eglot release 1.14 is not as stable as 1.12.29. It has new features= . > > Also a recent bugfix in commit a74403adda0 is quite complex and > > I'm cautiously waiting for feedback. Other simple bugfixes have > > been backported. > > So you don't recommend that users who want a stable Eglot upgrade to > 1.14? Depends on how "stable" they want it and how badly they want new features. > If so, why is it a problem that package-install by default > doesn't update built-in packages? Users who want the cutting edge of > Eglot, and don't mind some instability, can always switch to the > master branch of Emacs, where we are free to change package-install to > upgrade core packages by default. Users don't just switch to the master branch of Emacs. Many just can't because of enterprise complications, or just difficulty of compilatio= n. I've worked in companies using Emacs (some of them exclusively!!) for 20 years. Most users are two, sometimes, three Emacs releases behind. They are not remotely interested in updating. "IT doesn't like it". "It's not the official". "This one is just fine". But if a colleague goes to their workstation and shows them M-x package-install RET very-fancy-nice-thing or sends them a super-fancy init.el they will take it no problem, and buy you coffee and rave about it. I can't be the only one who has experienced this :-) > > But if someone types M-x install-something they should get what > > they ask for. If they want to be 100% safe, they just shouldn't > > invoke commands that download, compile and evaluate code. > > The logic should be consistent. Emacs 29 is the stable branch of > Emacs, so it should come with the latest stable Eglot. If that is > Eglot 1.12.29, then the fact that package-install won't upgrade it to > 1.14 is consistent with the stability of Eglot's versions. If, OTOH, > you think that it's imperative to allow _all_ users of Eglot with > Emacs 29 to upgrade to Eglot 1.14 (and 1.15, 1.16, etc., when those > become available), then we should release Emacs 29 with 1.14. I think it's imperative to _allow_ -- as you say -- and also and to _make easy_. More importantly, and to the point, to _make it as easy as it was in Emacs 26, 27 and 28_. But I'd prefer not to force Eglot 1.14 (or likely 1.15/1.16 by the time i expect the final RCs to be around). > > Notwithstanding this personal opinion, I underline again that > > it _is_ possible to craft a simple, emacs-29-safe modification, > > to the package-install function that is even more cautious to > > download certain types of things. > > Philip presented such a safe modification, and we are in the final > stages of discussing its details, before it will be installed. So > yes, it is possible. As I've explained to Philip, the big drawback of that -- undoubtedly safe -- modification is that it is not compatible to user's configurations that have a (use-package 'eglot) or a (package-install 'eglot) in them. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 15:46:26 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 19:46:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47763 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnPNK-0008Vj-Im for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:46:26 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f47.google.com ([209.85.210.47]:43581) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnPNJ-0008VV-1t for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:46:25 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f47.google.com with SMTP id m19-20020a9d7e93000000b006a43569e458so622481otp.10 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:46:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681501579; x=1684093579; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=xMKOdxzjJ62KQjArnARDhHa2Taks6dezVNTtouD1nBc=; b=N/SctEDPHShaNecnJ+iCyIkN+mel6L7S/OyaXj56SBAe7L5n1xQMejyIHRRGQWX42D mebFaluApjs+9op5HCubQljhro5Lfko3DnHi9+xYe1/rGFc0lLpO04pBXN965+MMTn6A LWb5BECo3demIIQQoT3tnII/ZY9NfmckiZ6tWBzwOdF91YOlSc7NyyQzLUFt2kKpyV90 CrBoWQuM+MFqyvBcESYlEwwsEH9P66/aPSP97FJcNHUZWBaylDReysTVDqqV/vddkfoJ 9PClqlSdemlTExI+qKc6g7LnWr00+fccoA1PdWhgytAoJr+qsyh4aWhj76v0Yw0WCrEU cutA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681501579; x=1684093579; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xMKOdxzjJ62KQjArnARDhHa2Taks6dezVNTtouD1nBc=; b=fAhFFU3gJQ5GSIJ7UeQjxFdsvUOISSrRv7L1BtUU7Jm9k7Ex9xd7tfh4kq6jFLnjPH I8EwNoAD6TnpROH5Ztr91gc9xrVy3P1TiU32/6d38V1bbSgzg7dxmt22sW7EvzGdon5J TJCup6M0Q/7ZbvTU1inoFxfOweZ37P/MM3u99PGxI8nN8euWeeZgQddu5Ep36KgdaMAQ iIiGclk23vMXSfyu4m2OQis/Xi8lnn2pKoDXh74fxgy8rIOUclUr0FZaMo1pppmDdjwr +zEYK/8JCJL3F3top6p9NaKMYRdSji7Fn2IazkpLTZvF5tWuq+7TsgU1k9CoB1BnECAk 41qA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dJkj7V3GHH9jsgggv96xSfqM3dDLMsOLYdvT87iQIo/Lguysg6 /2oJ90BUQW/0p20irl6ZmhMkyPDPwAwLykgpHlqlAEHj X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350atz8d8EIK8vYgBh4hPHCYJiLwBJgm70y2/9tmWoSEksrmhWhRXMz+RZJWOUNmtDF9NMivx8+smIeBBSGsAvD8= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6a95:0:b0:6a4:2e21:12f6 with SMTP id l21-20020a9d6a95000000b006a42e2112f6mr1823936otq.4.1681501579662; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:46:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <87leiupfps.fsf@posteo.net> <87cz46pbed.fsf@posteo.net> <874jpip8c1.fsf@posteo.net> In-Reply-To: <874jpip8c1.fsf@posteo.net> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:48:15 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Philip Kaludercic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Pluim , Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii 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 (-) On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 8:33=E2=80=AFPM Philip Kaludercic wrote: > >> > Here's another solution you may want to consider. package-install > >> > in Emacs 29 updates built-ins non-interactively always. Interactive= ly > >> > asks the user with a confirmation prompt. This solution would > >> > also work. > >> > >> What would the confirmation prompt ask the user? > > > > "Are you sure you want to install Foo which is [also|now] a built-in > > package in Emacs 29?" > > I feel this is confusing, if a user is not familiar with the way > built-in packages can be upgraded and are maintained. Perhaps instead > of a simple yes-or-no-p, we could use read-multiple-choice to add some > more background? Sure, I actually don't know what that does, but whatever you think is best, I hope the point has gotten across. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 14 16:04:16 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 20:04:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47785 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnPea-0000lA-4v for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:04:16 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:60059) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnPeY-0000ks-F1 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:04:14 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A3B02402B6 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:04:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681502648; bh=Jb9TT9nYgh8nz1bmUpP+nJr3Y0PfGsRLR2QAaPu7/cQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=ZbgpW8JHA42u3cs/ClCKHaCHPnHmwldnndLo1GeE/TExl1vk2FOSyg+tt7+f9pKua p7eGEvdQYpN4VB9RZq0cOzZ0AGsH97JbcbGQrqhRSTkWgPUrLe2bGMPnUnvTQ++Mua n4dTjtWsYYrE2Uy4dovDeB6shaWyz7EUAwzf4Bad6djvjKITP4IbWMIlm/uY+EQEVe lqDtFBlGjNARoZ3Axwp+supXmP1aro4HDLs15a6CaIktjQ1ExjVrHNqshp8Nny/rlz QM9TpEZnZcas5qyFQ00ZzRbaYQxo3kH49Tkd/9FPbn3qIOHfYxaFTi9dABtOEJdkmV twVRZum9+ewtQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PynTM4T0dz9rxP; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:04:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:46:02 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:04:37 +0000 Message-ID: <87v8hynsbu.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: >> > Notwithstanding this personal opinion, I underline again that >> > it _is_ possible to craft a simple, emacs-29-safe modification, >> > to the package-install function that is even more cautious to >> > download certain types of things. >> >> Philip presented such a safe modification, and we are in the final >> stages of discussing its details, before it will be installed. So >> yes, it is possible. I might have missed a message, what was the last state here? > As I've explained to Philip, the big drawback of that -- undoubtedly > safe -- modification is that it is not compatible to user's > configurations that have a (use-package 'eglot) or a > (package-install 'eglot) in them. Again: Are we sure about this? After all, the package is installed (which I think is the main thing), it just might not have the most recent version. Calling this "not compatible" seems excessive. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 04:33:46 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 08:33:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48186 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnbLt-0002hL-Ke for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:33:46 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com ([209.85.128.51]:53488) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnbLr-0002h5-N0 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:33:44 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f0915c64a3so3058495e9.2 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 01:33:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681547618; x=1684139618; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=GCJCkqKKsv0jwvDWdxih1dIeDmehUGC1DJvTzphrweQ=; b=Lf4OeQ7YvYCAjYdHvj7+I7EcPcnfnGV1d6TB/R1ilr4CuIvNEMXbQSJKkpdfODPkfm f53rufxZVb+Uwp5bCGdtC4xROz9amhYwOdx5UZqzYCinwTvpfu6aS4pO7wDk1xZ2SWFs nf/DRA7ZRSWGd3KnaSLTvyNAUQRFD6IKVpspMjIED1p/qADtyuGEoBfy/TfTwcHLhvyk FePA6TGoItNo7euwM5L841sNbx7P/+jD0sxZBiCWZqqL0dbSzXSIlSA3VykpqP66nuWO 1/XlYJ9nwUG3+fEHHFpobMBTjv49auG92WZxpuLZmpYp16gA/HXKmUnjjDOZ8NUCOhWt Xf1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681547618; x=1684139618; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=GCJCkqKKsv0jwvDWdxih1dIeDmehUGC1DJvTzphrweQ=; b=DdCnerc7EuRijDmoADkjdmSjzML7jVcs6pCFsfBIdziWGhjUUzvO/rE5n/cbV/WK6b FBo6CTovlcNULm6RNhCPgWn2PPtd7hwhXzZ5TiCqTEi6qmM6AkQNiLZ+sbcxBnl4p+fZ 1QGVcDHbWiX0yJGf5TKFRrbUkN2Zy5j5hSaj/JaGqtoNkgH+5JPZd/g/dggyisHNP50c LFjyRIkMOHJhG/ip0VEKYterzLZuiKxsNXhB1ye5e4pU3VzDRXcQiU6pjcATEtyzKIer rYT9KRpLAYnXQ+Eot55/o/mCI7OHjRTOi9WEsS8zJWKFoXPUb2UzEkPY3z/XAuWIJAev 8i5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9d0H6grrzvvlOOQfEEIJPxkGhk3o8duz4FAzUFjmoh3PoaQ7B37 4S0P6EVdFyPfDloc5DdJTYA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350b+kZQvwJgeNkGXueevadE8p8Fhipw0JeA+TxuxWt3RUikVMpwCyu1+gTZsAbRseeysNbGDKQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4bc9:0:b0:2ce:a34b:2b0b with SMTP id l9-20020a5d4bc9000000b002cea34b2b0bmr903227wrt.28.1681547617771; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 01:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n16-20020a05600c3b9000b003dd1bd0b915sm9882761wms.22.2023.04.15.01.33.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 01:33:37 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: Philip Kaludercic Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87v8hynsbu.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:04:37 +0000") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8hynsbu.fsf@posteo.net> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:35:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87a5z935ly.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) Philip Kaludercic writes: > Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: >>> Philip presented such a safe modification, and we are in the final >>> stages of discussing its details, before it will be installed. So >>> yes, it is possible. > > I might have missed a message, what was the last state here? Eli is talking about an interaction between you two, so you should be able to figure out. >> As I've explained to Philip, the big drawback of that -- undoubtedly >> safe -- modification is that it is not compatible to user's >> configurations that have a (use-package 'eglot) or a >> (package-install 'eglot) in them. > > Again: Are we sure about this? After all, the package is installed > (which I think is the main thing), it just might not have the most > recent version. Calling this "not compatible" seems excessive. I don't think we should look at this in legalese and disguise the fact that the same form in Emacs 26, 27 and 28 has very different results. In those versions (use-package 'eglot :ensure t) brings you always the latest and greatest. In Emacs 29, supposedly the more advanced version, it will bring you a different, older, less powerful, and one that might even be incompatible with the remainder of your configuration if you aren't aware of this obscure quirk. Furthermore the problem continues to worsen with time as packages evolve. This is incompatibility if there ever was such a thing. So the "package 'eglot' is already installed" shown to the user, while technically correct, is completely misleading. The patch you're preparing, last I looked at it, doesn't solve this. It does makes Eglot slightly easier to upgrade, at least if the user is aware of this quirky situation. But it still doesn't fix the use-package case, for example or the non-interactive config case. Eli said something like this patch could be acceptable for master and maybe 29.2.=20=20 ----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8< --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -652,6 +652,9 @@ package--builtins name (a symbol) and DESC is a `package--bi-desc' structure.") (put 'package--builtins 'risky-local-variable t) =20 +(defvar package--safely-upgradeable-builtins '(eglot use-package) + "See bug#62720 for longest docstring ever.") + (defvar package-alist nil "Alist of all packages available for activation. Each element has the form (PKG . DESCS), where PKG is a package @@ -2201,14 +2204,19 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " + (append (delq nil (mapcar (lambda (elt) (unless (package-installed-p (car elt= )) (symbol-name (car elt)))) package-archive-contents)) + package--safely-upgradeable-builtins) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) + (when-let ((desc (and (memq pkg package--safely-upgradeable-builtins) + (cadr (assoc pkg package-archive-contents))))) + (setq pkg desc)) (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'package-menu--post-refresh) (let ((name (if (package-desc-p pkg) (package-desc-name pkg) ---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8 1. Node code complexity. It's 6 lines of trivial code. 2. Absolutely no risk of "silent installation of software that wasn't ever installed before" 3. Fixes all the aforementioned issues Doesn't fix package-update, but that's minor in comparison, I didn't want to add bloat this enormous patch with 2 more lines. It is based on a hardcoded list. Dmitry has suggested other ways to whitelist. There are infinite ways, of course. Other have suggested blacklists. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 04:37:54 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 08:37:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48197 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnbPt-0002nz-Q8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:37:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43890) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnbPs-0002nm-5Q for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:37:52 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnbPl-0000Wx-3a; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:37:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=x9zxa8mTwsj5Aze3E8o0VC+FOHzth6GdmFfOIfdceoA=; b=FfU8t5+z4tCM /XNLNuJXb6pPTaq0OSWNfzjUJzFm2VgTsAUwEW6n7BSbOy8DNxDJmeOShOoSdXhd6SO0kmybqtrEq neW0EZAwE3gCcrlb78FnZuwHkH+6V+0WxdbRvFhCf+vhUzl2+eIJHXJ6Zp2tK9GBEUySfpYaHci5r 9lBA4DB2eoA8LlCOrE4BSVvdc/ocdK0yzT+wPcgyrqiYfx2WeW2m7ZuQPkUkiK+g0pjy3yEz9HWaH MgxZ4i7Nw2qt+5KKEjX/hFSeYX41j65dERqA9K8uXG86YDuLnt/pGVVOYpPyDx/scCZzR3FJ5MUWK Vcv0t13Jt/lmWzsVUAIIqA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnbPk-0003eR-1t; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:37:44 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:37:44 +0300 Message-Id: <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:40:01 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:40:01 +0000 > > > Hmm... looks identical to the previous patch you sent, which changes > > package-install? Or what am I missing? > > > > As for the question I asked: I'm okay with changing package-install if > > there are no objections from those who proposed to change > > package-upgrade instead. > > Did I send the wrong patch. I double-checked now and this one should be > using package-update: Thanks. It doesn't seem to be simpler than the change in package-install, perhaps even more complex than that. What is your preference? change package-install or package-update? I tend to the former. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 05:03:18 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 09:03:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48218 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnboT-0003de-F5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 05:03:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36298) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnboR-0003dQ-3f for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 05:03:16 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnboK-0006Wl-83; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 05:03:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=XaWMEh8Fynen7/Vw4Ug25YPyZKnocxXQLp+WbUrPf0w=; b=P0oV0vWOYJIqd8eRIHH2 4gVRkZVHnkGLOiO9Tq6VG6dK5o6EbzhGAgWSGxRfGaNNscvS6cwqQXwTmiTC85+/6zw2MoIpwuUze XIw+tf3vk6b+pFEF2kHx1e4VaebPH9utgGuGSADiK4EFIf411iW67shhSOI6NXniFfy9bAkg40fHe VuapZOOqH0CNuT2r7MOVy6uc0OA3zPyNyRWAnXhYX96FFdkIFnPVLuFhMs+TP5bGZf5PsOi7G7wGR lhELcYnG3sBfK75HSUKWJxbh0RfOiNw3vuAFVGbfF9NyB+sbHPX3QYs/IrEUzFUfLVHKXWMnw5rqp Bc/1stgDik6dbA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnboI-00005T-Vh; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 05:03:07 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:03:06 +0300 Message-Id: <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:46:02 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:46:02 +0100 > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 8:28 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > > From: João Távora > > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:20:20 +0100 > > > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > > > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 7:51 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > > > The Eglot release 1.14 is not as stable as 1.12.29. It has new features. > > > Also a recent bugfix in commit a74403adda0 is quite complex and > > > I'm cautiously waiting for feedback. Other simple bugfixes have > > > been backported. > > > > So you don't recommend that users who want a stable Eglot upgrade to > > 1.14? > > Depends on how "stable" they want it and how badly they want new > features. You are dodging the question, which is unfortunate. It is IMO an important question, much more general and important than this tempest-in-a-teapot issue we are discussing here. We will need to revisit this question seriously if we ever succeed in removing 'core' packages from emacs.git and bundling them with release tarballs. At that time, we will need clear-cut criteria for how to select the version of a package that is the most suitable one to go into the tarball. And that in turn will require the developers of each such package to seriously address the questions I've asked: what are the criteria for considering a package version "stable", and how is that communicated via version numbers and/or repository branches. For example, Org has that encoded in its branches, so that the latest changes from its stable branch are routinely merged into the stable branch of Emacs, and the latest code from that branch will be in the Emacs release tarball. Based on your answer, it sounds like Eglot users are on their own in this aspect: they have no real guidance from you which version is currently considered "stable". > > If so, why is it a problem that package-install by default > > doesn't update built-in packages? Users who want the cutting edge of > > Eglot, and don't mind some instability, can always switch to the > > master branch of Emacs, where we are free to change package-install to > > upgrade core packages by default. > > Users don't just switch to the master branch of Emacs. Many just > can't because of enterprise complications, or just difficulty of compilation. > I've worked in companies using Emacs (some of them exclusively!!) for 20 > years. Most users are two, sometimes, three Emacs releases behind. > They are not remotely interested in updating. "IT doesn't like it". > "It's not the official". "This one is just fine". > > But if a colleague goes to their workstation and shows them > M-x package-install RET very-fancy-nice-thing or sends them a > super-fancy init.el they will take it no problem, and buy you > coffee and rave about it. I can't be the only one who has > experienced this :-) I have no doubt there are such cases. But I very much doubt they are the majority. Whatever we decide, it is clear that some use cases will want a different behavior. The issue discussed here is what should be the default behavior, and whether the default behavior of Emacs 29.1 would be wrong for most users of Eglot and of other core packages. To reiterate: I think each release of Emacs should ship with the latest stable version of each core package. If this is the case, the need to upgrade core packages via package.el is not very important for the majority of our users who prefer to use a stable Emacs. Thus, the arguments you present emphasize the needs of the minority, and therefore I don't consider them strong enough to invalidate the compromise solution to which we are converging. > > > But if someone types M-x install-something they should get what > > > they ask for. If they want to be 100% safe, they just shouldn't > > > invoke commands that download, compile and evaluate code. > > > > The logic should be consistent. Emacs 29 is the stable branch of > > Emacs, so it should come with the latest stable Eglot. If that is > > Eglot 1.12.29, then the fact that package-install won't upgrade it to > > 1.14 is consistent with the stability of Eglot's versions. If, OTOH, > > you think that it's imperative to allow _all_ users of Eglot with > > Emacs 29 to upgrade to Eglot 1.14 (and 1.15, 1.16, etc., when those > > become available), then we should release Emacs 29 with 1.14. > > I think it's imperative to _allow_ -- as you say -- and also and > to _make easy_. "C-u M-x package-install" is easy enough. > More importantly, and to the point, to _make it as easy as it was in > Emacs 26, 27 and 28_. That's an impractical request, one that most probably prefers Eglot users (and only part of them at that) to those of other core packages. We must think about all the users, not just users of Eglot. The price of adaptation to the fact that Eglot is now a core package, while it is not nil, is not high. So once again, this solution is IMO a reasonable compromise, given the constraints. > > Philip presented such a safe modification, and we are in the final > > stages of discussing its details, before it will be installed. So > > yes, it is possible. > > As I've explained to Philip, the big drawback of that -- undoubtedly > safe -- modification is that it is not compatible to user's > configurations that have a (use-package 'eglot) or a > (package-install 'eglot) in them. That is not a problem serious enough to invalidate the solution. We can, for example, mention the change in NEWS, to alleviate some of the costs. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 06:22:43 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 10:22:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48295 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnd3K-0008Qn-NL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:22:43 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f45.google.com ([209.85.128.45]:40644) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnd3J-0008QY-0g for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:22:41 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f45.google.com with SMTP id o6-20020a05600c4fc600b003ef6e6754c5so9268484wmq.5 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 03:22:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681554155; x=1684146155; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=8QPowm17a8Kb0Cs5RvA6Q1PR1tkvGifphJpjWggG0Sc=; b=nGRajaq4qdmBwkueiiwAlg524wuOC+ZjeOA3HEx0hHR+ASprr7mysG3gKC72esxZC5 wDrO2hv5z+OU3e819LJAlKJThWeAAfP4+JFDwBcPIA/xjVnjx0Cl70+8FSZj0eXOYJ0b L7F6FWSwGpazRvCBu0qbUXA4HAUDgDS/be9sIj5Y3nXYfox25zNETBGjqFY2jSpnkNC9 qcEYLJTaL5eMqrvBoTt1NCyx8cVOtToO4FxQ4VTsvl30Kpz7HBdqqbFbDJD+JWqAZTh2 GTJxYhWFjkZCC/R9/ixmDk849U0JorTrP5qdwCahdqik51fCcmeOu9o489u4CNT7TjzY A3xg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681554155; x=1684146155; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8QPowm17a8Kb0Cs5RvA6Q1PR1tkvGifphJpjWggG0Sc=; b=MtlejJAX3jwV37+vec0sjSVb72Sp4kj0d2QHKqViiv55BlrrCZq4cD/6ramZHhV5bq H3WNoeuFwJd5l3FYvJHJWalcJVZqlMltDOEbYeUqd8E3+mUzTmdxSXSSjxnOGiwKf1Q4 Mkxwx1B+RWPw21HURnAMSO47dYl8+3LlRpmcyjQacwJWbOULATrF9K4dlne11LZXMBu/ GIsPKSKVO0rXCFBdaJmSW/3zSdBrWHCrEEHOteSMFrJ/p5UozqHeKoiUoFECKABTwILK utwG37+wQVWFPjFe8lmiffIzHNLfmjxxFFnXxH7225qMjoc/DMVTRTYceltdopeF6Omd CeeA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9c/4zpAZyLl/5p856wwZ5VYvscJ+XB6cLwV3L9NaJqC/JsuPDm4 ddHFawUwLoQQ983ml/lMQl8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aKecNarF0B7GosbPH6N1Q8TOMDqrLtcbR2JYTk3IKKcJFxfiS6m61waDrFsNxEQRA4YJV/eQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2251:b0:3ed:316d:668d with SMTP id a17-20020a05600c225100b003ed316d668dmr6320659wmm.5.1681554155072; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 03:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j4-20020a5d5644000000b002f02df4c7a3sm5469312wrw.30.2023.04.15.03.22.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 03:22:34 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:03:06 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:24:41 +0100 Message-ID: <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > So you don't recommend that users who want a stable Eglot upgrade to >> > 1.14? >> Depends on how "stable" they want it and how badly they want new >> features. > You are dodging the question, which is unfortunate.=20=20 I'm not. I don't have an answer. I can't have one. It depends on the user's wishes. Case 1: You use Emacs in a debian server VM you're setting up, perhaps in a remote location, perhaps shared with other users. Just 'sudo apt install emacs clangd'. No .emacs file at all and you can go edit little C programs conveniently and quickly. Then I recommend Eglot 1.12.29 bundled with emacs 29. Case 2: For your "daily driver" home system, I recommend `M-x package-install RET eglot' (at least I used to, that is ) since that will bring you the latest nice features tested to a good degree, but not as well tested as 1.12.29. > important question, much more general and important than this > tempest-in-a-teapot issue we are discussing here.=20=20 If I were to use your rhetoric, I would say you are "shifting" the question. I've never had real problems about this. But if you want to "revisit this question seriously", I'll be there, of course. > We will need to revisit this question seriously if we ever succeed in > removing 'core' ... > Based on your answer, it sounds like Eglot users are on their own in > this aspect: they have no real guidance from you which version is > currently considered "stable". They have the NEWS file, the bug tracker database, and my best efforts. I told you how I make releases. I want them to be stable, but there is no official pretest. "Guidance"? Are the two cases above I gave guidance? Just present some actual case and I'll give you my recommendation. Else it's like coming to a doctor and asking about taking a drug: the doctor probably going to ask you questions. >> But if a colleague goes to their workstation and shows them >> M-x package-install RET very-fancy-nice-thing or sends them a >> super-fancy init.el they will take it no problem, and buy you >> coffee and rave about it. I can't be the only one who has >> experienced this :-) > > I have no doubt there are such cases. But I very much doubt they are > the majority.=20=20 I don't, whole '.emacs' get shared like crazy. That's the number one method of "getting a configuration". People see other's Emacs in screenshots or over the shoulder and ask to see their init file. Not just Emacs of course, any util. Then they copy over bits they think are cool/useful. What you think they won't copy "use-package" forms?? People don't read NEWS and they don't read the manual. Most Emacs users I knew don't even know NEWS exists, what with that strange all caps name. They probably think it's some major mode for journalists. > To reiterate: I think each release of Emacs should ship with the > latest stable version of each core package. If this is the case, the > need to upgrade core packages via package.el is not very important for > the majority of our users who prefer to use a stable Emacs. Thus, the > arguments you present emphasize the needs of the minority, and > therefore I don't consider them strong enough to invalidate the > compromise solution to which we are converging. Sorry, but IMO you come up with very complicated logic and premises about stability just to arrive at where you want to arrive. A simple, readily verifiable fact remains. M-x package-install RET eglot in Emacs 29 will bring you a older version than in Emacs 28. If not today, tomorrow, eventually it will. And that's just bad in my opinion. And it will become worse. If, in your opinion, this is somehow a good or indifferent thing, we can stop the whole discussion right here. Again: if you think it's a _good thing_ that, in Emacs 29 (use-package eglot :ensure t)=20 or (package-install 'eglot) or=20 M-x package-install RET eglot produces an older version of Eglot than the very same form in Emacs 26, 27 and 28, please do say so ASAP. I was under the impression that you didn't prefer that, but I'm not sure anymore after reading your complex last paragraph. >> I think it's imperative to _allow_ -- as you say -- and also and >> to _make easy_. > > "C-u M-x package-install" is easy enough. > >> More importantly, and to the point, to _make it as easy as it was in >> Emacs 26, 27 and 28_. > > That's an impractical request, one that most probably prefers Eglot > users (and only part of them at that) to those of other core packages. > We must think about all the users, not just users of Eglot. The price > of adaptation to the fact that Eglot is now a core package, while it > is not nil, is not high. So once again, this solution is IMO a > reasonable compromise, given the constraints. It's _not_ impractical. There doesn't have to be a "compromise solution" at all. There _can_ be a win-win solution (presuming I even understand what counts as a win to you in this issue). I just gave Philip a 7 line patch, my fourth in this discussion, that does exactly I think answers all of your objections regarding risk/stability. Much simpler than any patch so far by _any_ measure. Lines of code, cyclomatic complexity, number of user options, NEWS changes. Will you look at it? Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 06:28:30 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 10:28:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48308 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnd8w-0000Jw-BN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:28:30 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56236) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnd8u-0000Jh-6F for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:28:28 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnd8n-0007xv-Ve; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:28:21 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=We0NZVy9H9eeMm/3Ms4yWijT9HmW7ygtw+de2DwvbTo=; b=Ny8KYBcdF6TAigCS0C/o ZhidZ+GHUaAU5nhIGZdtXYFCcpJ9oQcjHJMMlTn7H4na4ZybnvIfhX9p7qNOy231bFvbjfVUl/GQO QkEJrj+f6XbT2JkBF78e2/rTYqe6G2uiJHnW0SYN2VpoIWGFoZK+eeaLImk/bXLknUecbMWt+gvzQ 0mm7ktCDhORyQFRSI8rhFkmZ4tA+KCXEzzvAw2M/YCARPgcvT1a1i1t1j5cxIK6ZMA8ED6tS7zDiW dtoiZYySp34zkFZHxpLCwXZpjwssaXUSQ5R1P2VsoZYOzV/GWRilQ+PQJPJ3pL+Fu8Ss5zAuONhE9 8XAS6y3G40LkHQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnd8m-0001jm-Fs; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:28:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:28:20 +0300 Message-Id: <83r0slcud7.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28g?= =?utf-8?B?VMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:24:41 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:24:41 +0100 > > A simple, readily verifiable fact remains. M-x package-install RET > eglot in Emacs 29 will bring you a older version than in Emacs 28. If > not today, tomorrow, eventually it will. And that's just bad in my > opinion. And it will become worse. It is not worse, it is better: they get Eglot integrated into Emacs. > If, in your opinion, this is somehow a good or indifferent thing, we can > stop the whole discussion right here. Yes, let's stop. There's no reason to keep it going. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 06:40:14 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 10:40:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48318 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndKI-0000h0-47 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:40:14 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:59733) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndKF-0000gj-Kn for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:40:12 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21E8A2402CB for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:40:06 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681555206; bh=hNpJLKioIIzSdn1zjucb3NeFgTp7KfSB78M2v/eIuck=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=B/H3B8FmSj/4FmC8Mfo+aEHeb8nouTWuu4wyBesIqvxQUhqdtYE/3G/63EDLF3/mq jjTWVvVsdc0hLnSEoSwToWvio85k2VsTagjriopFzSUzzGeIV+j9is9fbzDqZgdDW+ MhWB6JY8LYY6uv7yjvIz2LFeLvLqWtMEwH8XnRkRzzaIjPQFzoSGwM0wCvP3GKZq4E K2cZ1TAdHUpX2Fs5Tp7Ip/JwQsYCST0RVKp1kP6F3WmY3U+7d6kDT+VUAJfaG0zryD gZHysNSyiPE/Q+JwftPQ+4zES7Z9dpELH+/aXXswDYmiCijz9ImMX3Y8fpLL4UyNoB KqNLD0ljMu+NA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Pz8w52JQPz9rxH; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:40:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87a5z935ly.fsf@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vor?= =?utf-8?Q?a=22's?= message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:35:37 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8hynsbu.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5z935ly.fsf@gmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:40:04 +0000 Message-ID: <875y9x5szf.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > Philip Kaludercic writes: > >> Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: >>>> Philip presented such a safe modification, and we are in the final >>>> stages of discussing its details, before it will be installed. So >>>> yes, it is possible. >> >> I might have missed a message, what was the last state here? > > Eli is talking about an interaction between you two, so you should be > able to figure out. I know, I have just lost track. [...] > Eli said something like this patch could be acceptable for master and > maybe 29.2.=20=20 > > ----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8< > --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el > +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el > @@ -652,6 +652,9 @@ package--builtins > name (a symbol) and DESC is a `package--bi-desc' structure.") > (put 'package--builtins 'risky-local-variable t) >=20=20 > +(defvar package--safely-upgradeable-builtins '(eglot use-package) > + "See bug#62720 for longest docstring ever.") > + > (defvar package-alist nil > "Alist of all packages available for activation. > Each element has the form (PKG . DESCS), where PKG is a package > @@ -2201,14 +2204,19 @@ package-install > (package--archives-initialize) > (list (intern (completing-read > "Install package: " > + (append > (delq nil > (mapcar (lambda (elt) > (unless (package-installed-p (car e= lt)) > (symbol-name (car elt)))) > package-archive-contents)) > + package--safely-upgradeable-builtins) > nil t)) > nil))) > (package--archives-initialize) > + (when-let ((desc (and (memq pkg package--safely-upgradeable-builtins) > + (cadr (assoc pkg package-archive-contents))))) > + (setq pkg desc)) > (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'package-menu--post-refresh) > (let ((name (if (package-desc-p pkg) > (package-desc-name pkg) > ---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8 > > 1. Node code complexity. It's 6 lines of trivial code. > 2. Absolutely no risk of "silent installation of software that wasn't ever > installed before" > 3. Fixes all the aforementioned issues Personally I think this would be a fine solution considering the constraints. --=20 Philip Kaludercic From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 06:42:01 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 10:42:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48323 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndM0-0000kR-Nb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:42:01 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:37211) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndLy-0000kD-CA for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:41:58 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3B38240292 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:41:52 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681555312; bh=v5GgzwU0ax49Rp6pnVxSso9ho3cfqXf11K1UrtemwCs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=n5TlJjdF/TdxKTyNWgrrOWYMvNpSAEtKH/RAS4f2nTEaTiTYPeTS41Wdhnf00H8bD F+psiCIEFWIwyyeTtZ4jTGT8mEop16Eh+ruc4FhiTALH3INpD9U5kK34x9xSW6mXmt 1vP6fgEXN0kK8Zn6gR4m8H9DEJjVZwoZ6okSkDCC0moLztpSQUeroMUp373nqp0QUt R1zMjbz6Npa/lgHaT0I7OwYuIarPEpR+rYuetoCnr/5Vr602jcxELWpP7g6Bdv7VrT H/3tSOrXPBA3sMs5I1nWs5rE61rXkoP1Q5TaQ0DXCWKCZMnbZe1k0F2xvUjmsCEu1D gy1lODfyUZNkQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Pz8y83WQ3z9rxH; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:41:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:37:44 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:41:52 +0000 Message-ID: <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.= org, >> larsi@gnus.org >> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:40:01 +0000 >>=20 >> > Hmm... looks identical to the previous patch you sent, which changes >> > package-install? Or what am I missing? >> > >> > As for the question I asked: I'm okay with changing package-install if >> > there are no objections from those who proposed to change >> > package-upgrade instead. >>=20 >> Did I send the wrong patch. I double-checked now and this one should be >> using package-update: > > Thanks. It doesn't seem to be simpler than the change in > package-install, perhaps even more complex than that. > > What is your preference? change package-install or package-update? I > tend to the former. I have no preference either way. If you think that package-install is fine, and Jo=C3=A3o has expressed interest in that route as well, we might = as well go that way. --=20 Philip Kaludercic From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 06:42:20 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 10:42:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48327 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndMK-0000la-4q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:42:20 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f54.google.com ([209.85.160.54]:43926) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndMI-0000lJ-LW for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:42:19 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-187a742a963so6143884fac.10 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 03:42:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681555332; x=1684147332; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=OvhCi2xm4S5aPjMVTDsBuQhZnEiwfRxi8hL7sQkNsYI=; b=TXq7tkDklFdH5QhvlenPh3Std618IodPULQbyt5j8ca2F7M4BX7/YtQAmGzyzF4ntV qjuSLRbBk0BRSSd59XPpjVR6tWEeblyxC8+/QjyGoHEb3B6xloVEcmDOA3/7/0BZ17Qi WH3mQmqE4pyTRrHGwz99ITvpc4BvzYppV9hf4/SmsB9o5LugBa2OHZFUvZj3Ijtuwt8z YZtwx7hioCFORrGELvrjY+epftaZmwinwEWdpULbuD4oAj3FoiCSJ6mhZoZUMyBHIFtM s2wWkTkgsjZwCS3ehvXCZwjRccD36psM9MHZZtIlVCyMHSNwpmYLUmsWwAyN5JMIPGYe xpcA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681555332; x=1684147332; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OvhCi2xm4S5aPjMVTDsBuQhZnEiwfRxi8hL7sQkNsYI=; b=Dxwc965L5/N7Q1Sf7LLLRYYIXyzE/4h13ehJoeoY2UEW/RHJFiCuOX8r4J7qI8MJEt XdLK3Xqlpgv0oBI0D0kz9qK3B9NJQRx9egr1GXqNbP4K2wMH0kuMIv06HmAxwTwSUFif h+IvwjvQ6ot2+giwZ5HxHbY/CYuh44q0CkQbz3d7T5rpSvcL4RGuwHUi3wlbafg3CZrD /IfVKEG61BMSQ6HlD7qP9pzmnshu9JHLb5RIBsXRwDDwUcnRywBvJAmkGK2p9rJOswo3 sMciEenPqvANaVOJwiFg/a8Mh6kbg+qIgUlKKGQNZ+XkQqMtmtTbGQoHXYdV9FPgVRb0 lMQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eMjbdmFwhAebI67fU147LaFP1d18s1pixomxG1qeaSuo84TI91 EYq2PSlvS19q0c6RFc7sEXroPejDYAKcYUHuEXE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aX1IrjeLCp3DhWDZO2j6Ivid5ZAS7JQR9bu0ctn79lz8KirHLzGEdl2H0ld6rl2mhAAhoCX/qeUl66rn5tCOg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:113:b0:187:9bf2:af63 with SMTP id y19-20020a056871011300b001879bf2af63mr3137297oab.5.1681555332699; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 03:42:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8hynsbu.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5z935ly.fsf@gmail.com> <875y9x5szf.fsf@posteo.net> In-Reply-To: <875y9x5szf.fsf@posteo.net> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:44:08 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Philip Kaludercic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:40=E2=80=AFAM Philip Kaludercic wrote: > > Eli said something like this patch could be acceptable for master and > > maybe 29.2. > > > > ----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8= < > > --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el > > +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el > > @@ -652,6 +652,9 @@ package--builtins > > name (a symbol) and DESC is a `package--bi-desc' structure.") > > (put 'package--builtins 'risky-local-variable t) > > > > +(defvar package--safely-upgradeable-builtins '(eglot use-package) > > + "See bug#62720 for longest docstring ever.") > > + > > (defvar package-alist nil > > "Alist of all packages available for activation. > > Each element has the form (PKG . DESCS), where PKG is a package > > @@ -2201,14 +2204,19 @@ package-install > > (package--archives-initialize) > > (list (intern (completing-read > > "Install package: " > > + (append > > (delq nil > > (mapcar (lambda (elt) > > (unless (package-installed-p (car= elt)) > > (symbol-name (car elt)))) > > package-archive-contents)) > > + package--safely-upgradeable-builtins) > > nil t)) > > nil))) > > (package--archives-initialize) > > + (when-let ((desc (and (memq pkg package--safely-upgradeable-builtins= ) > > + (cadr (assoc pkg package-archive-contents))))) > > + (setq pkg desc)) > > (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'package-menu--post-refresh) > > (let ((name (if (package-desc-p pkg) > > (package-desc-name pkg) > > ---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->= 8 > > > > 1. Node code complexity. It's 6 lines of trivial code. > > 2. Absolutely no risk of "silent installation of software that wasn't e= ver > > installed before" > > 3. Fixes all the aforementioned issues > > Personally I think this would be a fine solution considering the > constraints. Me too, of course. Good luck :-) Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 06:56:24 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 10:56:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48347 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndZv-0001PH-Nx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:56:24 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:32972) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndZu-0001P1-8Z for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:56:22 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pndZo-0005bM-W0; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:56:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=pJoq8juxONrPaf6uFuXD8yM1K/9yZXRcZHrA3Zr8Sg0=; b=mV9gutY0sTTNmustnh5B i6MYW0DtxfdE8WezyEkUUwzzSj5rP5/PRbYzFy3P4K//JLxTsfum6M4JZW08Z5gEZLFDL7iC8Jw+e utF5tCM4qz1kRh/G61CehMn6DRMtuLVEsQeul6r/1AbOfg7HUEF0Q9QAgJqiDwu79Ayd1vTHdZXfU +oif5WOh+gIJBZG+kEpJ91M7Yz6BCQnE/qAh54obR8i/u5OM6V2KytCVCoCumTzNkOTIDsc0Kw6gL edgwbZZxd6Sob3LV1pbRjq15uoLZEe1cWGAEKG1cbmP7xK+MwqFuS7xuGDdrtPeVCMa7xXRaknAM2 kfR9cuEpaoPKsQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pndZo-0003ZC-DW; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:56:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:56:17 +0300 Message-Id: <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:41:52 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:41:52 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > What is your preference? change package-install or package-update? I > > tend to the former. > > I have no preference either way. If you think that package-install is > fine, and João has expressed interest in that route as well, we might as > well go that way. OK, then let's do that, and thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 07:19:39 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 11:19:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48377 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndwQ-00027w-Rg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:19:39 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com ([209.85.221.44]:47444) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndwP-00027k-BZ for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:19:37 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-2efac435608so308214f8f.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:19:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681557571; x=1684149571; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=bIWcXbLWrKSpQPjg0rwuEVj3G6wYpvdJsrb/vKeoy50=; b=qhlWiM4zgfj5iNi0Z9+/KWn7Dok/K9GOEJjUkWM1NZP1f0y3XbFJxa2vk6nll7WfAk 7fCJP1+irOaZ1pYpo8Ip0dsJbLUnjA/WVgIWz4H6cd/LwIW/25UB5dw/Ng6cLMbcdOrh SDxSygYJljPilKSRfJCnObyFuJK9UVyJNIme+M+5taBVUGl5wLl56InQssoBlp/2KGvb j/8QAwFEYDghL5M+jvNXQlIaaUIWyGqbS9hrIt1D1l3jOMb5+kF4iYNhsl0PfyfvjbXd 94ragB60jeekCdevT6233mQQ/m3qQcVH7p7/bG3Ux4d9xdphIDSuDQvQ/A+rpNFQEktP K1Tw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681557571; x=1684149571; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bIWcXbLWrKSpQPjg0rwuEVj3G6wYpvdJsrb/vKeoy50=; b=I55yXVcMiRn0i7ck9hJB3ZWonwOcQ7ab6t+xPt+p7hbTis1t1e7kqlZEAhfmeSY+YT tdCkHgbSGqgWLloxXHXWW4q/4EpAB/SVn95vhu5DmaXZWyrVX2MX4X9e/39uUPZOSq8i b5nvyh835l0Xg0H14hfYEQIG/2VjTyoS3/M1jsVEzdTlBr+L+f3ecrb52uVtbs5uIaai /dmD52FZ+i9bozT5An8hFLwklaGFotyEgcEFVKzEdUifX8g6Is4a9Zd/G/7eq+NQSM4T S5BfYQ2EDURUHKH3JU5pNFSxVGlpOvPDL8xszjFQ7Nev/7V1W6pfRnjwLqXc3MlZ8Cas 1n+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ez2jng0L2IL1yjr41JrnIkfIsmCkC0x9y7RyfhWMzef9YSMiul PB3vAoAuUWYrHezPeEITQVs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YtGAIU+Tdk+rohv9avJ8JsmZjfY1MmZ6yAs/y3O+ohmd3dv+1IHjBNyDAMcHjNvsHmN5J2Ng== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6752:0:b0:2ef:ae66:c0e3 with SMTP id l18-20020a5d6752000000b002efae66c0e3mr1187609wrw.12.1681557571206; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amdahl30 ([2a01:e0a:253:fe0:2ef0:5dff:fed2:7b49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bl18-20020adfe252000000b002d7a75a2c20sm5542529wrb.80.2023.04.15.04.19.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin_Le_Gouguec?= To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vor?= =?utf-8?Q?a=22's?= message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:24:41 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:19:29 +0200 Message-ID: <87o7nppf3y.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > A simple, readily verifiable fact remains. M-x package-install RET > eglot in Emacs 29 will bring you a older version than in Emacs 28. If > not today, tomorrow, eventually it will. And that's just bad in my > opinion. And it will become worse. > > If, in your opinion, this is somehow a good or indifferent thing, we can > stop the whole discussion right here. > > Again: if you think it's a _good thing_ that, in Emacs 29 > > (use-package eglot :ensure t)=20 > > or > > (package-install 'eglot) > > or=20 > > M-x package-install RET eglot > > produces an older version of Eglot than the very same form in Emacs 26, > 27 and 28, please do say so ASAP. > > I was under the impression that you didn't prefer that, but I'm not sure > anymore after reading your complex last paragraph. If I may throw in my =C2=A22: in Emacs =E2=89=A428, users never had a choic= e between a "installing the newest Eglot from GNU ELPA" and "requiring that Eglot be available, possibly not the latest & greatest". They could only request the former. It's anyone's guess which of those two things users who cargo-cult those configuration lines would prefer, now that the question is up in the air for Emacs 29. FWIW, I'd lean toward the latter: IMHO, package-install, resp. (use-package =E2=80=A6 :ensure t), merely suggest ensuring availabili= ty, not proactively ugprading to the latest (unlike say "package-update"). So I wouldn't be shocked for package-install to be a no-op for :core packages, the semantics being "make sure the package is present, favoring any built-in version which presumably underwent lots of validation & stability fixes on the release branch". With that perspective, I don't think the change in behaviour users will observe in Emacs 29 re. which version of Eglot they get with `M-x package-install eglot' is necessarily "worse": it depends on how much one values "a release branch's worth of stability fixes" vs "a development branch's worth of new features". ( Although I can understand that, in the _specific_ context of an LSP client that is in active development & "competing" with a MELPA-only alternative, it is a bit of a bummer that M-x package-install =F0=9D=92= =AB will yield something that users might consider "inferior" feature-wise when =F0=9D=92=AB=3Deglot. A bit of a bummer, but not a deal-breaker IMO; as = long as "M-x package-list U x" brings the latest & greatest, I still think package-install's behaviour change re. eglot in Emacs 29 is defensible. ) ( Sorry for butting in and adding more words to this lengthy discussion; just thought that hearing the perspective from one random user might help. I must also confess that I might not have read the whole thing as attentively as I perhaps should have; the parallel subthread between Eli & Philip re. changing package-install or package-update makes me unsure what "U x" will actually do with eglot in Emacs 29, so my previous parenthesized digression might be moot. ) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 07:37:49 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 11:37:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48394 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pneE0-00051p-RJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:37:49 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:45647) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pneDz-00051d-8x for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:37:47 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95F024020E for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:37:41 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681558661; bh=xyqLr3svqIn09RgScxG7l/ZAGdJ67EWkk5lHuMUnF9c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=ZG8Uirkho79WBkrivegFyVGlDJ2bZmDrAZH9RbsBpfk+KYsAD+rGEwrMNjjnwM6lR YGk4gL+4eis5JfnrVbNvxcfT9r5sqVvxp+MthyRhtSnU5GkcfIKea5cW+/A+fAq639 XLoDtldr336hO040C/IqRWSQ5HBt1AkYAaj0GFqlhbMajCy2hjOHDXZ+c5a8fF9Avo 5AujJjvmogJdbw6hb7heu0UMW7FyZhCoLwsUOy2ctFZkgYSisIcvmUtmVG2FSxXLTK kD2QzCn2GfvcfRFv97kAnhV2qjDBI0tM2TTcN1R0RgAvb6jrtHQjt6n37x+/qsvodI gSIOL/FFt5/Mg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PzBBX6qDnz9rxF; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:37:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:56:17 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:37:40 +0000 Message-ID: <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.= org >> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:41:52 +0000 >>=20 >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >>=20 >> > What is your preference? change package-install or package-update? I >> > tend to the former. >>=20 >> I have no preference either way. If you think that package-install is >> fine, and Jo=C3=A3o has expressed interest in that route as well, we mig= ht as >> well go that way. > > OK, then let's do that, and thanks. Great, then just to that we are on the same page, what approach do we finally want to decide on? - User option to enable upgrading built-in packages - Prefix argument to enable upgrading built-in packages - Always upgrade built-in packages I argue the last option should be safe. Semantically it would also make sense, since invoking the command can be taken to be take to be an explicit request, and if it is not what a user wants (I assume that Jo=C3= =A3o think this is not probable), then it is easy to revert. If we decide that this is not acceptable, then we can fall back onto the patch that uses a prefix argument or a user option. --=20 Philip Kaludercic From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 07:43:14 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 11:43:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48422 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pneJG-0005Bz-5h for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:43:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41272) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pneJE-0005Bl-5f for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:43:12 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pneJ8-0007Xo-B3; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:43:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=D4TFum3wFAQQaZXwl0+ZgLWQ46pVaHuxCIsrwoVhgBA=; b=TKkqD/XnSbNwqlhyzSAk YYh1D+1Lpbm7t6dV4n0R4NJT1jZm44IL/0b1RHki9FQdE15hE6kYKAoWwh/hnbtiDZ7XYavxV3HeE as1BYtDxHClfVfbNaCGiTx6DvFdXHcyg3TTLvxqxTHhB21oOhv2/7CigIC02KvTtquZxgv+66qXCF Uzp8j+uIvdomZsLzkJE+29+EScIbNQRfA/LbQGsT/C8CRysbPyz3ZqHQ0DiBz+PZLUpkrX4auq3+V JhtRyGvEYQt4tYE38be5rgPJ7NdoAHOVNCNgP5v08+gIZgQqdVe1z2/xLgANyHBvlQJ5kWilHpJZQ NnzEM21Em8PBeA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pneJ7-0004uy-Jv; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:43:05 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:43:06 +0300 Message-Id: <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:37:40 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:37:40 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> I have no preference either way. If you think that package-install is > >> fine, and João has expressed interest in that route as well, we might as > >> well go that way. > > > > OK, then let's do that, and thanks. > > Great, then just to that we are on the same page, what approach do we > finally want to decide on? > > - User option to enable upgrading built-in packages > - Prefix argument to enable upgrading built-in packages > - Always upgrade built-in packages The first two on emacs-29, the last one on master (if enough people think it's a good idea; me, I think we should wait for a while before deciding). > I argue the last option should be safe. Semantically it would also make > sense, since invoking the command can be taken to be take to be an > explicit request, and if it is not what a user wants (I assume that João > think this is not probable), then it is easy to revert. > > If we decide that this is not acceptable, then we can fall back onto the > patch that uses a prefix argument or a user option. Yes, that is what I think we should install on emacs-29. Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 08:33:55 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 12:33:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48475 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnf6J-0006p3-4V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:33:55 -0400 Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.221]:38863) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnf6H-0006or-QN for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:33:54 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31BF9582BDD; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:33:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:33:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681562028; x=1681565628; bh=qHN39aSXv/WLv9kQ1ZTXIiXf3gElw+sz5GX WvgeSxNA=; b=QgWppxM4pYcfuIyHpE3pbm8rQ/wvbhunsP7WdIRB1d4y3kLa8Xu tKfN42vCGrdDqjEVU0v6Hj87TqDz65tIlaaZbhj+SPP9tcCqNkvZI3ISOaocDx/6 I0T1BlY9tWQmsFOuEwoYjg7+NwAgnKfdp5Nku+VxnBSnuK6wD3GWOd8j1fMaQn1j awuc+yoHPE+F38IpN5IC0pIvqra2PzoYKKICqjxP9haAWNX/UZZ8pE/47E8rT+Id cIRSYxgouYzVX0zmzUFYkG3v4jvp3qEMgG088ZA+LGRKff7FwMRg6kiu8H7bz3b6 Tj0Yh9T3LYTCiIDDup2mY95QLK83mLF/wVg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681562028; x=1681565628; bh=qHN39aSXv/WLv9kQ1ZTXIiXf3gElw+sz5GX WvgeSxNA=; b=QLIYuTO+rHmqoveGTPEdbjN2wcP60sYg4CfTPR4VYKCW3qwkYY/ ur0HYu4t9Ywkjg/3v6Si0tBynqoz/Tb71O8D4RhYROrxKuZdZJS0NRCIPlOUC0eA y3Kk25/x048HhF7V4dGpJMxRuvlhWuE2hXqe0GKIAc0E2FiVyjVwcQTJpo+EPL4Q zwzhSYQFI1TwxM58vlu6/OD/MfXYaUrfoAbyuNK59e7j3oh4wltMsm2oz+uI3CgI kD5MYZ8JnTYVG4Gj2i+rycDfcXWN7oVm4WHJVEUO0Ql5z89l+y8mw2oas3oa8o83 jpThSGFZDnETyfKFlwlj2SD5edAdHrIqrYA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdelvddgheduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <26e79a75-3b6e-a042-298c-bf13f42a3729@gutov.dev> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:33:44 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?Q?K=c3=a9vin_Le_Gouguec?= , =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7nppf3y.fsf@gmail.com> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <87o7nppf3y.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii 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: -2.8 (--) On 15/04/2023 14:19, Kévin Le Gouguec wrote: > If I may throw in my ¢2: in Emacs ≤28, users never had a choice between > a "installing the newest Eglot from GNU ELPA" and "requiring that Eglot > be available, possibly not the latest & greatest". They could only > request the former. > > It's anyone's guess which of those two things users who cargo-cult those > configuration lines would prefer, now that the question is up in the air > for Emacs 29. FWIW, I'd lean toward the latter: IMHO, package-install, > resp. (use-package … :ensure t), merely suggest ensuring availability, > not proactively ugprading to the latest (unlike say "package-update"). > > So I wouldn't be shocked for package-install to be a no-op for :core > packages, the semantics being "make sure the package is present, > favoring any built-in version which presumably underwent lots of > validation & stability fixes on the release branch". I can easily buy this argument (and made it myself in a different form, I think), but the problem is, there is no easily discoverable way for the user to force the upgrade. They'll need to hunt the docs for how to do that. > ( > Although I can understand that, in the _specific_ context of an LSP > client that is in active development & "competing" with a MELPA-only > alternative, it is a bit of a bummer that M-x package-install 𝒫 will > yield something that users might consider "inferior" feature-wise when > 𝒫=eglot. A bit of a bummer, but not a deal-breaker IMO; as long as > "M-x package-list U x" brings the latest & greatest, I still think > package-install's behaviour change re. eglot in Emacs 29 is > defensible. > ) 'M-x package-list U x' does not upgrade built-in Eglot either, AFAIU. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 08:34:53 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 12:34:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48480 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnf7F-0006qx-Ip for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:34:53 -0400 Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.221]:36303) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnf7D-0006qb-Q0 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:34:52 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9556582BDD; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:34:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681562086; x=1681565686; bh=xhYdDgFAg5Bab0Ogkgb1i6m+eCSl+wyrqCZ 8jUztjag=; b=bDELLtgAkyBOU4Xfvbz8moNuWnAoUG1tV4OtvpZCvKmf9yT+krC axb7h3sAyAHxqhtsLkh5KOcANED49EdoOpak/87OMYC+hWT79Sf2Qdlqi8sgVe3S YEfk2INj47dh+sN62A4iYytVEqgqF45fe7plqqIYRvLOp/Y7HNW+/9UZ/nszd4wC 4jX5HGw38xOw/35s/STG4oODQ9SArECq0y0kyU/9nbsfCafx936YUBsEqdYcGRe5 iZ5wrx9q115Sq9JGLRj4q6jGMOhhOUlwAl7oQpl9gOsFOl0J3CrthUmsk0W6ll1g +KxF0MLuF2wA7LFPuqnbOMtW22GAs37M8Hw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681562086; x=1681565686; bh=xhYdDgFAg5Bab0Ogkgb1i6m+eCSl+wyrqCZ 8jUztjag=; b=jRD1ZOHq56NrNr12+OfbcXcvRnmD/jsQooU6XAWzvIp7v1DOR2a ZfWl7ctfQURuKatq51wWyg3tOlbF+8pX8eqFCvuKewPK6zepmwyyDWg8bM2tRSWq rppAO2wz1aGXMsdr3xLfIbC6bORJr7j1o4SoRgfvY+SlCRCBjwBNXdDNm+XMSTrJ Sq08bHMf/vZI4Fhp8U+UhkpaFbQy763sRkxehwLIhGaotkk/wwTBPVvCmjojDytd RzvQZFD/YgB8JFEhKL6YrjfuAxVL1a/eHoTWeiLbQgrQKF4vX7Lt8aLE0quS2tdm XbFQ09vIibdRQ48hd+Z3eoCAIulf4MDBHYQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdelvddghedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:34:42 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Philip Kaludercic , =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8hynsbu.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5z935ly.fsf@gmail.com> <875y9x5szf.fsf@posteo.net> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <875y9x5szf.fsf@posteo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , rpluim@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.8 (--) On 15/04/2023 13:40, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >> Eli said something like this patch could be acceptable for master and >> maybe 29.2. >> >> ----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8< >> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el >> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el >> @@ -652,6 +652,9 @@ package--builtins >> name (a symbol) and DESC is a `package--bi-desc' structure.") >> (put 'package--builtins 'risky-local-variable t) >> >> +(defvar package--safely-upgradeable-builtins '(eglot use-package) >> + "See bug#62720 for longest docstring ever.") >> + >> (defvar package-alist nil >> "Alist of all packages available for activation. >> Each element has the form (PKG . DESCS), where PKG is a package >> @@ -2201,14 +2204,19 @@ package-install >> (package--archives-initialize) >> (list (intern (completing-read >> "Install package: " >> + (append >> (delq nil >> (mapcar (lambda (elt) >> (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) >> (symbol-name (car elt)))) >> package-archive-contents)) >> + package--safely-upgradeable-builtins) >> nil t)) >> nil))) >> (package--archives-initialize) >> + (when-let ((desc (and (memq pkg package--safely-upgradeable-builtins) >> + (cadr (assoc pkg package-archive-contents))))) >> + (setq pkg desc)) >> (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'package-menu--post-refresh) >> (let ((name (if (package-desc-p pkg) >> (package-desc-name pkg) >> ---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8---------->8 >> >> 1. Node code complexity. It's 6 lines of trivial code. >> 2. Absolutely no risk of "silent installation of software that wasn't ever >> installed before" >> 3. Fixes all the aforementioned issues > Personally I think this would be a fine solution considering the > constraints. +1 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 09:22:07 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 13:22:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48539 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnfqw-0008MU-KL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:22:07 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:53283) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnfqq-0008Li-Te for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:22:05 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06FB6240232 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:21:54 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681564915; bh=4iPQkYAERHZhijhiWSkRO12dULAKr8xffet2hXtxXMY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=X2mAvwHn0bxYmwLyIW6QlXVXSaJxTDp2XMIngNs/bNdPuVsKpNqA5Xgixlhse6Shr kzvZX8Gvoe4x5wdj+u0PiFZdrss8vvLnYfczO/zJudGmP2b39UTGLKxJmrTqqKjbo9 MfZbNfafrP4q59PCS5VEzL3TE9/a761ux4f4mHTr2o92lZDwE1n3bq5Sx6GQsvOFZZ JtofKveKvcczVL9rQ0hp1TIaseLmu6ZWNeUPgL+Xo8N3eYuT4H0XYpFV5WgDmv+NTQ +2rPx4of+A8wrHhElFNOOs6Cg+oHJn7a5OIox9ZdOzRH8+csMrO1LX51Hn2gUT5XNC /P6diuYC1ghvg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PzDVp0nt6z9rxB; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:21:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:43:06 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:21:53 +0000 Message-ID: <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.= org >> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:37:40 +0000 >>=20 >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >>=20 >> >> I have no preference either way. If you think that package-install is >> >> fine, and Jo=C3=A3o has expressed interest in that route as well, we = might as >> >> well go that way. >> > >> > OK, then let's do that, and thanks. >>=20 >> Great, then just to that we are on the same page, what approach do we >> finally want to decide on? >>=20 >> - User option to enable upgrading built-in packages >> - Prefix argument to enable upgrading built-in packages >> - Always upgrade built-in packages > > The first two on emacs-29, the last one on master (if enough people > think it's a good idea; me, I think we should wait for a while before > deciding). OK, so let us use this change: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-Allow-upgrading-built-in-packages-with-package-insta.patch diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..842a475290d 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -797,6 +797,17 @@ package-built-in-p (require 'finder-inf nil t) ; For `package--builtins'. (assq package package--builtins)))))) +(defun package--upgradable-built-in-p (package) + "Return non-nil if PACKAGE if the built-in version is used." + (and (not (assq (cond + ((package-desc-p package) + (package-desc-name package)) + ((stringp package) (intern package)) + ((symbolp package) package) + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) + (package--alist))) + (package-built-in-p package))) + (defun package--autoloads-file-name (pkg-desc) "Return the absolute name of the autoloads file, sans extension. PKG-DESC is a `package-desc' object." @@ -2187,7 +2198,9 @@ package-install "Install the package PKG. PKG can be a `package-desc' or a symbol naming one of the available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. When -called interactively, prompt for the package name. +called interactively, prompt for the package name. When invoked +with a prefix argument, the prompt will include built-in packages +that can be upgraded via an archive. Mark the installed package as selected by adding it to `package-selected-packages'. @@ -2205,11 +2218,13 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (and (or (and current-prefix-arg + (package--upgradable-built-in-p (car elt))) + (not (package-installed-p (car elt)))) + (list (car elt)))) + package-archive-contents) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) @@ -2220,6 +2235,8 @@ package-install (unless (or dont-select (package--user-selected-p name)) (package--save-selected-packages (cons name package-selected-packages))) + (when (package--upgradable-built-in-p pkg) + (setq pkg (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) (if-let* ((transaction (if (package-desc-p pkg) (unless (package-installed-p pkg) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (I intentionally picked this one without the user option since that will probably become unnecessary with Emacs 30+). I believe there was an issue with the name `package--upgradable-built-in-p' and the docstring? >> I argue the last option should be safe. Semantically it would also make >> sense, since invoking the command can be taken to be take to be an >> explicit request, and if it is not what a user wants (I assume that Jo= =C3=A3o >> think this is not probable), then it is easy to revert. >>=20 >> If we decide that this is not acceptable, then we can fall back onto the >> patch that uses a prefix argument or a user option. > > Yes, that is what I think we should install on emacs-29. > > Thanks. --=20 Philip Kaludercic --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 09:34:58 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 13:34:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48544 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1png3O-0000HR-8R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:34:58 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com ([209.85.128.46]:55331) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1png3M-0000H8-3n for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:34:56 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f09b4a1584so2598755e9.2 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:34:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681565690; x=1684157690; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=qXNDp4MnNDiv1T3+6Wb+ljwsooSMPjzMNaDQB/bg67A=; b=S7NVAjk3LLwNm6ahv1x7+KhVZlUBx2BZVUq8oceNt5+/ZnAwksfZsJ6I0YgVbmMKWi 6/cfQvAqZO47shNPbQC+RoD6xT6cjZDtFtseE0+Nsiq22/gpQFzrEkkv0490bT8t23yf +968axZ7zueuUg1sH/C7ZSuTRAsvVUqEoF8HTRgk0XO9vtB6em1M5nAfDo+dhEq6QZBR 1rwRIZH2cO5ZZPcpZcdnpxebjxwBxBxCiKuiZ0dskOsu+kKkELSeQDZsh04opBKo/Hc5 Hji5tD07nrDxrzIMJwNkTMnDMC//7yAkcnUyVuaCN9g+alPk+pwX7l0tWpojxs47jTwD Feag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681565690; x=1684157690; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qXNDp4MnNDiv1T3+6Wb+ljwsooSMPjzMNaDQB/bg67A=; b=COdddpZU3KAhCE2KWSqEYqc4rrg4WHx8ZA+pjLbmMfVMO7cOHJgRmj4MPmZLEkGcyB JkcJl4znpjTfN/iMPY5uoHP5ts7l2NJWM2vvfLuintg/HCw44ZZa8idGYw6XWvHANKko W3WUFFhIwT2eTQx7pMht0Knfm/g/dhWyn8aSCyb1x+XxRh7IDYEEK6nHI6gMkQToFjZW LpPlTnsP+msiUnDtfAf71OxNB+bBGhlDfpVCBzB3gM5qeSzxI5HQEwOwjT05WfrbvEf2 VXO9uumPRm8hMplLcGkbAmmYpLAlfyYmIhgdgROzn01lcxC8u94o0bTSKihaXE69N+M+ LkTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cg+T6ZEa1DecX4rM7NYpRR04zzmoWrKY95Z80yIKWw6SEsPQTd yY1dKXD/tiuL4Qn+NxQyEkM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bFq2itbTN5kJ6jDk5gqHrYhr9CM3783/qz08+9x9bOR78BTZv/Ej6+T+qqyvHBF0HKqBxRtA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1d2:b0:2ef:b1bd:786 with SMTP id t18-20020a05600001d200b002efb1bd0786mr1378075wrx.13.1681565689970; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y12-20020a5d470c000000b002c70ce264bfsm5801498wrq.76.2023.04.15.06.34.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:34:49 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: =?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin?= Le Gouguec Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87o7nppf3y.fsf@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22K=C3=A9vin?= Le Gouguec"'s message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:19:29 +0200") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7nppf3y.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:36:54 +0100 Message-ID: <87h6th1d3d.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) K=C3=A9vin Le Gouguec writes: > yield something that users might consider "inferior" feature-wise when > =F0=9D=92=AB=3Deglot.=20=20 > A bit of a bummer, but not a deal-breaker IMO;=20 It's not the end of the world. But certainly not good, especially if those users have just upgraded to Emacs 29 on some new machine and ported over their Emacs 28 config. It could even break. In fact eventually it will simply break, if Eglot 1.16 adds, say, some eglot-fancy-eldoc-function and the config has (package-install 'eglot) (add-hook 'eldoc-documentation-functions 'eglot-fancy-eldoc-function) This will break sooner or later, and bizzarely so, IMO. Just as a data point, I got a lot of confused users just because of bug#62576 and the missing "project-name" function. And, mind, you there, the simplest of workarounds, restarting Emacs fixes the issue. But it still confused a load of users so eventually I tooks steps to avoid it. Just see https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/search?q=3Dproject-name&type=3Ddiscussi= ons > Sorry for butting in and adding more words to this lengthy discussion; > just thought that hearing the perspective from one random user might > help.=20=20 No problem. I always like reading your feedback :-) Let's see where the tip of this discussion is heading. Philip proposes: > > - User option to enable upgrading built-in packages > > - Prefix argument to enable upgrading built-in packages > > - Always upgrade built-in packages And Eli replies: > The first two on emacs-29, the last one on master=20 Now, this means that things like (use-package eglot :ensure t) in Emacs 26, 27 and 28 will rev up Eglot to the very latest, Emacs 29 will stay at 1.12.29 and Emacs 30, 31, 32 again to the very latest. This is almost the mathematical definition of instability. And the amplitude of the version cliff will just keep growing. I just don't think it's a good thing, but if Eli and you think it is, that's perfectly legitimate. The key thing here is that there was a package hitherto with given update semantics. That package wasn't in core and now is. It's a clear clash of update semantics, and noone (including me) was able to foresee it. I do appreciate all the other arguments for stability. Because of that I proposed a very simple patch that addresses everyone's concern but unfortunately I don't think is going anywhere -- who knows for what reason. Even though Philip, Dmitry and I himself think it is the cleanest solution for emacs 29. See the patch here: it's 6-7 lines of code. https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D62720#467 > between Eli & Philip re. changing package-install or package-update > makes me unsure what "U x" will actually do with eglot in Emacs 29, so > my previous parenthesized digression might be moot. Alas U x in the package menu _also_ doesn't upgrade Eglot. And neither does M-x package-update-all. I don't see any plans for doing so. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 09:52:05 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 13:52:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48549 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pngJx-0000ud-72 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:52:05 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40078) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pngJu-0000u4-BF for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:52:03 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pngJo-0003oy-DK; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:51:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=t/h5FJeqQVaV1y+1tbg/DIx+rnUMO8og+iYvq4ps1nE=; b=OknWXWTnkbOR hbeS5JbiAc5C5lteHKKQc6+ND8IjdzgEuy/HjvDUEMK9UvR5xU9OeIAPEJvFptZ5eFhbjWetKrQjO MAGTAHDEw1pjO1OlEbtrq9QhOTOObbP87/sxwGGhDlaHHOCGWoo18+6e32d9WMaHuZQpIphyHFCuZ Vtgjf/63TV9T/76hxkNRfMDOGc6ERNzv1+ZWYYpoZVMyKdH+FQGZg3GNsdwiUcUcEUDPgQZjHQRlp 0Bz4Lbt0qSb9SCaNVp29fd7UrSG84UHd57C1jW7JaZNgPdB2Ry1LAAOc3YfsW7yi+CFCseJakkOKK B6qIRpWozggfxj43I5/XEQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pngJn-0004YZ-Mh; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:51:56 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:51:55 +0300 Message-Id: <83a5z9ckxw.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:21:53 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:21:53 +0000 > > >> - User option to enable upgrading built-in packages > >> - Prefix argument to enable upgrading built-in packages > >> - Always upgrade built-in packages > > > > The first two on emacs-29, the last one on master (if enough people > > think it's a good idea; me, I think we should wait for a while before > > deciding). > > OK, so let us use this change: > > (I intentionally picked this one without the user option since that > will probably become unnecessary with Emacs 30+). The user option allows those users who always want package-install to upgrade core package to have what they want, easily. So I think we should keep it. On master, the option could be t by default, or become unnecessary if that's what happens (but I wouldn't bet on that). > I believe there was an issue with the name > `package--upgradable-built-in-p' and the docstring? Yes. The doc string has a typo: "Return non-nil if PACKAGE if the built-in version is used." See those two "if"s? And even if I replace the second "if" with "is", the sentence doesn't make sense. As for the name, I think we can leave it at that. Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 12:53:16 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 16:53:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50003 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnj9H-0006XW-UW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:53:16 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:55439) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnj9F-0006XI-NS for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:53:14 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CBAB240191 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:53:07 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681577587; bh=6OizY9TQ+khNQKCpUegA0KgK+lt1kHY5YlnUFxbNd0I=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=Zeo9ljaioSefcdcTnJ5iYBYBxRypB7fX3YuZG7pi01ZEaHQgktQNvCSDt9P2jJnTE FL8A68DK2OKkMzZArKCWwtLdulh67LOw27NE1OfWnucX9Dt3JyQgCqhUsneaEtsAhq f55ZM77LC+TszKHle8kWtHGOb9VxxsMqtAhiQDYqXtDjiFCIQp5eBwPp/qHMayVAM/ fLZtlGDTXeljFYCf7Gxy3JyyTOyUTQ2fTWuqCaEu+ubnCWeFfcxcqvO5/oqYT9M4WY cyuU+I+MLVjqrROp/B+Va9xW9bTjD5kZLOx4J5KtufGe9HbPaQORzQ1R+Ds3F0mxko u/FuzSYKpsweg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PzKBV1NHGz9rxF; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:53:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87h6th1d3d.fsf@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vor?= =?utf-8?Q?a=22's?= message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:36:54 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7nppf3y.fsf@gmail.com> <87h6th1d3d.fsf@gmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:53:05 +0000 Message-ID: <878ret2iku.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, =?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin?= Le Gouguec , Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: >> between Eli & Philip re. changing package-install or package-update >> makes me unsure what "U x" will actually do with eglot in Emacs 29, so >> my previous parenthesized digression might be moot. > > Alas U x in the package menu _also_ doesn't upgrade Eglot. And neither > does M-x package-update-all. I don't see any plans for doing so. But selecting the package with I and then installing it will "update" it -- which is a good argument in favour of using `package-install'. --=20 Philip Kaludercic From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 13:14:51 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 17:14:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50009 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnjUA-000786-Va for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:14:51 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:33013) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnjU8-00077s-Q7 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:14:49 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4087240172 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 19:14:42 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681578882; bh=h4pmKUkDNGnMfdF17dN8TqpxLv+x2qcmTNoF1H1u7Tk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=MnJ40QA0Z1UppZi3w6cs5YGLbp/QSGu3AEIs4ncehciit/crNKZb/WxLUs0Wxt2x3 zXgA5UW4o3t+unWNGhEfYFlQET42D3btubHrHlDRSI8W5pYO9/6R/Lafo9NDDDvMAM y6PPG/VuOL58uw2jznP5DyGEBXTIvtomAm+0lDPOSGxcTRct+zdJUNf0CV/6Axk1WM ActRM0gQWhf8e7ipxZ/cSXWF6kcI64t4ZRVduo1LJOk5zehwz9+yZWShfgkU10Zs/s SZffOXicnAspW0MAdrnXTciYzyR6cc2unG3M9IGYC6iyJE/vgjQTw2nKI6hwE+gKal Eyz5E83ZWAMUA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PzKgP61t4z6tvZ; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 19:14:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83a5z9ckxw.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:51:55 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> <83a5z9ckxw.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:14:41 +0000 Message-ID: <87zg79130e.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:21:53 +0000 >> >> >> - User option to enable upgrading built-in packages >> >> - Prefix argument to enable upgrading built-in packages >> >> - Always upgrade built-in packages >> > >> > The first two on emacs-29, the last one on master (if enough people >> > think it's a good idea; me, I think we should wait for a while before >> > deciding). >> >> OK, so let us use this change: >> >> (I intentionally picked this one without the user option since that >> will probably become unnecessary with Emacs 30+). > > The user option allows those users who always want package-install to > upgrade core package to have what they want, easily. So I think we > should keep it. On master, the option could be t by default, or > become unnecessary if that's what happens (but I wouldn't bet on > that). My argument against a user option is just that the whole deal is something that will in practice at most affect two packages (if we change the behaviour in Emacs 29). Is it really worth adding a general option for this very specific situation? >> I believe there was an issue with the name >> `package--upgradable-built-in-p' and the docstring? > > Yes. The doc string has a typo: > > "Return non-nil if PACKAGE if the built-in version is used." > > See those two "if"s? And even if I replace the second "if" with "is", > the sentence doesn't make sense. Right, how does "Return non-nil if the built-in version of PACKAGE is used." sound? > As for the name, I think we can leave it at that. Ok. > Thanks. -- Philip Kaludercic From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 13:37:18 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 17:37:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50052 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnjpt-0007gX-Rh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:37:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36176) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnjpq-0007gH-Sf for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:37:16 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnjpk-0007KJ-M2; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:37:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=KlYzxAVbxJEqqTOl0WJliece8ZztkTjcFjFMuBxC0Wg=; b=EqBubwIHGx8w twLmMH/oCxC/jL+MYR/992jqED70O6ayxcDQkU9Wvt4266Vpr3mjRAX4KW5iv2bPTDc1DaUoDFfLq 8ZgyfCOxN0gILo0Si33mw4Q7ntskF8hTpLbeqiM89Fnb/AxvxKEQOPQZAbW3rYGS+X7IwD44Osk39 c2PBa4zJxsxqH5jFr2UoMbyMjV3dLkMAziiRNjiqOe4wSHFEWG6rTyBIWSyV9z+hKcfDUwV/AXNs/ 2hQseN6iPRZ6lCShiXht0Hy09RAMP5gGzTSTE1OcTpC03ylcsupgYlV687rN9aQaBTv1CaZBcepwN zLHGUXK8m7Wjv1d9hCCFzQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnjpj-0005Gq-St; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:37:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:37:07 +0300 Message-Id: <837cudcaik.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87zg79130e.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:14:41 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> <83a5z9ckxw.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg79130e.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:14:41 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > The user option allows those users who always want package-install to > > upgrade core package to have what they want, easily. So I think we > > should keep it. On master, the option could be t by default, or > > become unnecessary if that's what happens (but I wouldn't bet on > > that). > > My argument against a user option is just that the whole deal is > something that will in practice at most affect two packages (if we > change the behaviour in Emacs 29). Is it really worth adding a general > option for this very specific situation? I think we should count users of those packages, not just the packages themselves. Yes, I think it's worth it, because we don't know how many of the users will want the built-in packages to be included in an update. > > "Return non-nil if PACKAGE if the built-in version is used." > > > > See those two "if"s? And even if I replace the second "if" with "is", > > the sentence doesn't make sense. > > Right, how does > > "Return non-nil if the built-in version of PACKAGE is used." > > sound? I think we should explain what does "the built-in version of PACKAGE is used" mean, in the context in which this predicate is used. Maybe say something like Return non-nil if the built-in version of PACKAGE is used. If the built-in version of PACKAGE is used and PACKAGE is also available for installation from an archive, it is an indication that PACKAGE was never upgraded to any newer version from the archive. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 14:19:42 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 18:19:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50098 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnkUv-0000lE-N0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:19:42 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:45445) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnkUt-0000kw-Dq for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:19:40 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F5FE24016B for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:19:33 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681582773; bh=WbsFmuoW76jNCZJbkMP/DsJj7OKcHxz1+Jn/DKAYS4s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=HPVDP7Tae0tXCjo05kv5yXdP0bSIpUhdQnPt10uTwf81K/4tarJTMJPOhwbuf1fae Ly7lztWwGlL3y8p/F1yOGl4IjdOFA89sHR2VFYJeGgY8B5KqOS0HifCVQBG9hGAst2 Fji2lyfTFLaZ87DSzL54KLlyOc7MHQ7PlM67Y2YYkjz0XFcj4+rZaBZRqHc1h/6sun 5f/Ff+/R6cSmuBqJ17ZDjuXa7OXr8+s5sUlMnptW+UHfO0dMIVsoDw8kF+oelzjxxn ZjW2PwvThJA61EFFU07WVyYw068ioh1gv5QJxh/dPzczniQILCe7CMkErGKsLLEStd Rb+KPnuN0xjfw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PzM6D2vQNz6tsb; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:19:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <837cudcaik.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:37:07 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> <83a5z9ckxw.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg79130e.fsf@posteo.net> <837cudcaik.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:19:31 +0000 Message-ID: <87r0sl100c.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:14:41 +0000 >> >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >> > The user option allows those users who always want package-install to >> > upgrade core package to have what they want, easily. So I think we >> > should keep it. On master, the option could be t by default, or >> > become unnecessary if that's what happens (but I wouldn't bet on >> > that). >> >> My argument against a user option is just that the whole deal is >> something that will in practice at most affect two packages (if we >> change the behaviour in Emacs 29). Is it really worth adding a general >> option for this very specific situation? > > I think we should count users of those packages, not just the packages > themselves. Yes, I think it's worth it, because we don't know how > many of the users will want the built-in packages to be included in an > update. OK, see below. >> > "Return non-nil if PACKAGE if the built-in version is used." >> > >> > See those two "if"s? And even if I replace the second "if" with "is", >> > the sentence doesn't make sense. >> >> Right, how does >> >> "Return non-nil if the built-in version of PACKAGE is used." >> >> sound? > > I think we should explain what does "the built-in version of PACKAGE > is used" mean, in the context in which this predicate is used. Maybe > say something like > > Return non-nil if the built-in version of PACKAGE is used. > If the built-in version of PACKAGE is used and PACKAGE is > also available for installation from an archive, it is an > indication that PACKAGE was never upgraded to any newer > version from the archive. Sounds good to me. --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-Allow-upgrading-built-in-packages-with-package-insta.patch >From dae52770fa50bb68a4fdd0983de7811e427733a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Philip Kaludercic Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 20:13:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Allow upgrading built-in packages with 'package-install' * etc/NEWS: Mention the change * lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el (package--upgradable-built-in-p): Add new predicate. (package-install-upgrade-built-in): Add new user option to enable feature. (package-install): Respect new user option. --- etc/NEWS | 5 ++++ lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS index 84dbb94a71a..a7834cd0d2b 100644 --- a/etc/NEWS +++ b/etc/NEWS @@ -1876,6 +1876,11 @@ package maintainers. By customizing this user option you can specify specific packages to install. +--- +*** New user option 'package-install-upgrade-built-in'. +When enabled, 'package-install' can be used to install +newer versions of built-in packages. + ** Emacs Sessions (Desktop) +++ diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index f92afe56b76..c0cc7bebeb2 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -797,6 +797,21 @@ package-built-in-p (require 'finder-inf nil t) ; For `package--builtins'. (assq package package--builtins)))))) +(defun package--active-built-in-p (package) + "Return non-nil if PACKAGE if the built-in version is used. +If the built-in version of PACKAGE is used and PACKAGE is +also available for installation from an archive, it is an +indication that PACKAGE was never upgraded to any newer +version from the archive." + (and (not (assq (cond + ((package-desc-p package) + (package-desc-name package)) + ((stringp package) (intern package)) + ((symbolp package) package) + ((error "Unknown package format: %S" package))) + (package--alist))) + (package-built-in-p package))) + (defun package--autoloads-file-name (pkg-desc) "Return the absolute name of the autoloads file, sans extension. PKG-DESC is a `package-desc' object." @@ -2182,12 +2197,18 @@ package--archives-initialize (unless package-archive-contents (package-refresh-contents))) +(defcustom package-install-upgrade-built-in nil + "Non-nil means that built-in packages can be upgraded via a package archive. +If disabled, then `package-install' will not suggest to replace a +built-in package with a version from a package archive." + :type 'boolean + :version "29.1") + ;;;###autoload (defun package-install (pkg &optional dont-select) "Install the package PKG. PKG can be a `package-desc' or a symbol naming one of the -available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. When -called interactively, prompt for the package name. +available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. Mark the installed package as selected by adding it to `package-selected-packages'. @@ -2197,7 +2218,11 @@ package-install `package-selected-packages'. If PKG is a `package-desc' and it is already installed, don't try -to install it but still mark it as selected." +to install it but still mark it as selected. + +If the command is invoked with a prefix argument, the upgrading +of built-in packages will be possible, as if +`package-install-upgrade-built-in' had been enabled." (interactive (progn ;; Initialize the package system to get the list of package @@ -2205,11 +2230,14 @@ package-install (package--archives-initialize) (list (intern (completing-read "Install package: " - (delq nil - (mapcar (lambda (elt) - (unless (package-installed-p (car elt)) - (symbol-name (car elt)))) - package-archive-contents)) + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (and (or (and (or current-prefix-arg + package-install-upgrade-built-in) + (package--active-built-in-p (car elt))) + (not (package-installed-p (car elt)))) + (list (symbol-name (car elt))))) + package-archive-contents) nil t)) nil))) (package--archives-initialize) @@ -2220,6 +2248,9 @@ package-install (unless (or dont-select (package--user-selected-p name)) (package--save-selected-packages (cons name package-selected-packages))) + (when (and (or current-prefix-arg package-install-upgrade-built-in) + (package--active-built-in-p pkg)) + (setq pkg (or (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)) pkg))) (if-let* ((transaction (if (package-desc-p pkg) (unless (package-installed-p pkg) -- 2.30.2 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain -- Philip Kaludercic --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 14:37:29 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 18:37:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50125 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnkm8-0001Id-Sp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:37:29 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52900) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnkm8-0001IS-1E for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:37:28 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnkm2-0001cM-MC; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:37:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=weEIU/hATcsoRJlvNImSklI+G2WAm064UnZMgD47Jfg=; b=llehmuzNpYqO 5qExSUM7JAvjv1+v3bjunpg7F8Jpxeo+ShSc1zBDY7rTGbWfG3CLfqCzEJvUsMABhqh+IRuvxXjaV TGqJ3G0R4Q+4tpA7sCx0J0e6uK9iXIcUfLTfG4vezymQnJAF0uiRVZUI12NkAPhB1fqnaCZB4DdTn uNEurkxBodyeOdcZ8LrENuA1hF0RzbnFGKGcuel+lFh4if8QaHihzMoHgkfIeZORcC4kFPwTO97qU Rr9VkdvE5/c+t6yrON519ogP0nu5z4qf6QOpbIRammPetYnO0T2Sy2Aepw5TwoJ+estYB0KgmYOSp iMRH+hI+l2KD+MqE3ciTlg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnkm1-0002BO-KK; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:37:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 21:37:23 +0300 Message-Id: <831qklc7q4.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87r0sl100c.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:19:31 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> <83a5z9ckxw.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg79130e.fsf@posteo.net> <837cudcaik.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl100c.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:19:31 +0000 > > Sounds good to me. The patch LGTM, thanks. Please install it. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 15 17:17:04 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 21:17:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50227 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnnGa-0005ni-79 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:17:04 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f44.google.com ([209.85.128.44]:59533) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnnGY-0005nB-MK for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:17:03 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f44.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f086770a50so3641215e9.2 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:17:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681593417; x=1684185417; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=TPDzR3s28wWQifoXRV6kdo6Ak++l2H0y97My/6eKkG8=; b=SxsPl6nFx8/c66+WozrsZo4xFR7puGD4zhbJhOKBQUYMubcsKMOa43zVg+R8LSMUoM WYTkGEOnrfE4/zQxlytovLWnVqScaM+8wSF3JHB4vTHfDE5nYcgIvyqctLBPBpqS14C+ OXXznbvzp7ysHgarzQdAConpempS6BKDK7LIbmyRy3xlyvQrLJ2iKKKF5f53O4y/NuFs T7AbxVFjIZ2bS7DuaZPwLgmhivJ4Mn6rPSvb7KbOpmzmzBh0tCxmmU6C9gliSU7WVAqA S9eBE0/jKfIdrRFgHD+Dg8fkrHnE1U7DSPr6BnByOxjRmVtzQg9FF8AYSQXF642Y8yBV IFEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681593417; x=1684185417; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=TPDzR3s28wWQifoXRV6kdo6Ak++l2H0y97My/6eKkG8=; b=Snx3fg1e72BdsqWLZUkjaneyzBZUIVE3AHtUTSFMAEBVJDu/yfq7ZcmhN24wr9/574 NKQA2Xwru//ig52Np6Y688X/gVusIVupsmNsEO3xFp6Tdl4nGga0ze/0hJff3uqQuWrx YWVIL342N94gDJzSzQnPV17f8Q+lZPBMwxTKvfohElyldtqFS0M54haVEjb/esBzNhmO 06KeE0NTUljxwzPheg2KGLYEVOYbeDTkF4SMien3YFzXN6KkzxqrEMiDdIwKOpuYEQKM 1bbUmSAj6ZIyVOlqzjRIJPhYo1XkwAvqQbniU2/X/sqMPxLPRBupBWCVF+UfNO6smCi3 Cpxw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9f+ntwDJDqCe9Msj9/D9xm04yftdFStPBRSW+Kb43RteUaHfgNw HJReV5aXXUyF76qyY2th/SY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aDNH82IOymWxuloYlNfy7Skt2w7sbR3K1/ohgEfAu8mn5cZajmsX74dwODMtXzl3WaGjbSYg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1242:b0:2f9:95b4:450a with SMTP id j2-20020a056000124200b002f995b4450amr142797wrx.25.1681593416530; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amdahl30 ([2a01:e0a:253:fe0:2ef0:5dff:fed2:7b49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l11-20020a5d480b000000b002f2783ba25asm6495837wrq.65.2023.04.15.14.16.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:16:55 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin_Le_Gouguec?= To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87h6th1d3d.fsf@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vor?= =?utf-8?Q?a=22's?= message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:36:54 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7nppf3y.fsf@gmail.com> <87h6th1d3d.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 23:16:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87edokyhfd.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: >> between Eli & Philip re. changing package-install or package-update >> makes me unsure what "U x" will actually do with eglot in Emacs 29, so >> my previous parenthesized digression might be moot. > > Alas U x in the package menu _also_ doesn't upgrade Eglot. And neither > does M-x package-update-all. I don't see any plans for doing so. Interesting; thank you and Dmitry for confirming my impression. This was perhaps the most surprising aspect of the equation IMO, although now it does not sound so bad since, IIUC from reading package.el, _once_ users manage to install eglot from ELPA (using Philip's pending user option), _then_ either method should let them fetch future upgrades transparently. ( Took me a couple of minutes to reach that conclusion; found it mildly confusing that package-update-all and package-menu-mark-upgrades each have their own heuristics for enumerating candidates. IIUC the former iterates through package-alist; the latter looks at all *Packages* lines with status =E2=88=88 '("installed" "dependency" "unsigned" "extern= al"). So once eglot becomes "installed" under package-user-dir, both methods should allow users to stay on top of new versions=E2=80=A6 ? Hope that's not my optimism skewing my reading of the code. ) ( Neither here nor there, but this whole discussion reminds me of bug#59005, where another :core package (transient) gets silently updated from ELPA if it's a dependency of a package that the user asks to install (magit). Assuming (a) I correctly understand what that other bug report is about (b) I correctly understand what Philip's patch does, ISTM that it will cause a behaviour change in that situation too? Not wholly sure about (a) nor (b) though, and even then, not wholly sure that the change would be for the worse, especially since there would now be a user option to make the desired behaviour explicit. ) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 16 06:21:11 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Apr 2023 10:21:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50638 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnzVP-0008Ml-HD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 06:21:11 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-f51.google.com ([209.85.218.51]:33398) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnzVO-0008MX-CE for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 06:21:10 -0400 Received: by mail-ej1-f51.google.com with SMTP id kt6so18639502ejb.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 03:21:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681640464; x=1684232464; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=cV5VV1nPE1XrQP8lA0KIVlAg30SNUY/Ia98CaPEYThE=; b=iH8kozZmJTKg4am8I5GZiTfXfZVldR7vQc8MoywMTIvb66ffWvAlTPGwQl1kO/NLIB HIwHxyME4FqsMiSxg1cKc2p0pO3dh7ItP+jsVkX8J/DeChfpPXygITRolaR4LdvgftpE 3I9oPcPqOHi3YIa6164/ZOION92xiLpUDslKbJTpLUsfhRXajoFAaBbXt32P2tfw/0oy 7IMUXTAH3b7OeqpdwmK18BtrPruLxxnCDUqqRWLvF6YNX9wIjwEpSnozdO0ntM4Y8tsc LC5cVhuUFmxek8uodIUiw/b7ilvaq+ZoRr457MNFqZX4SWVZDjNbdfoKrz6+fGVQlBca HGEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681640464; x=1684232464; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cV5VV1nPE1XrQP8lA0KIVlAg30SNUY/Ia98CaPEYThE=; b=IYy+sVvi9kSBop7C8LSD7sd/9QIeaBHGBzD2JUfOfVAd01fM5MLFFWZypuQclcaNVZ 7LvM8hqHoES6uUS6i9pEKR/WG3PGcj+ZTxub0px2OOe9UKl0LCKhtl6fL2+TU1IsEv19 PsASCTYW45P0c1D1wFktBTJnNkuhu9OQbH6XLTj/8LwKLOQyyQuNF/H+LNHHWzI6XBBF Hn8bh7+0lznmk4WBGtknSFvG+VnR86trFsgIJ5o+OPSRP5lnUJrWoL8ehLfZ2rqH1Ncl KRC/CuUBxKKHdrgcn2oa0s3yVpbetFOB2Bc6a/oVtEX8bVvPt41w09T83Z9IqODtAY3C BOvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fqDopWrs6AKJzuPxK9mbC7KGvppfPSifpNsG5YS7AUjaTAC4RR OZ/qVxfIfEaFrtWJ+xJjTak= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ar4+IG65TB7IXKWL/MqLY4Kt5y2gDeP+L+lDeIBGrqm08IZTreMtAopA06XMlYKqxyBilD2A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:30cd:b0:94b:22a7:7865 with SMTP id vl13-20020a17090730cd00b0094b22a77865mr3349987ejb.28.1681640464264; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 03:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id qx11-20020a170906fccb00b0094f499257f7sm841966ejb.151.2023.04.16.03.21.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 16 Apr 2023 03:21:03 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: =?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin?= Le Gouguec Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87edokyhfd.fsf@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22K=C3=A9vin?= Le Gouguec"'s message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 23:16:54 +0200") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7nppf3y.fsf@gmail.com> <87h6th1d3d.fsf@gmail.com> <87edokyhfd.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:23:08 +0100 Message-ID: <878res15yr.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) K=C3=A9vin Le Gouguec writes: > Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > >>> between Eli & Philip re. changing package-install or package-update >>> makes me unsure what "U x" will actually do with eglot in Emacs 29, so >>> my previous parenthesized digression might be moot. >> >> Alas U x in the package menu _also_ doesn't upgrade Eglot. And neither >> does M-x package-update-all. I don't see any plans for doing so. > > Interesting; thank you and Dmitry for confirming my impression. > > This was perhaps the most surprising aspect of the equation IMO, > although now it does not sound so bad since, IIUC from reading > package.el, _once_ users manage to install eglot from ELPA (using > Philip's pending user option), _then_ either method should let them > fetch future upgrades transparently. Yes, there are two sides to this question. - User friendliness to interactive commands. I think it's not very user friendly to do one behaviour in Emacs 28 and another in 29 and again another in 30. But I've abandoned this battle. When doing things interactively, users are more likely to ask themselves why and search for answers. So the solution is not that bad. - Non-interactive installations, such as the ones you get when trying someone's init files, setting up new systems after upgrade, CI system scripts etc. Those will be broken, silently or violently, and the root cause will be much harder to find.=20=20 For example, a user enjoying, say, the bug fix to https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/1206 in Emacs 28 with a simple (use-package eglot :ensure t) in her config, will suddenly see the bug pop up again in Emacs 29. The same with a user enjoying the no-flooding-echo-area bugfix feature, which depended on changes to both Eglot and Eldoc. The same for a user enjoying the new eglot-prefer-plaintext feature for bug#61373. It's the second problem which is more serious IMO, and it's inevitable it will keep geting worse. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 16 06:42:06 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Apr 2023 10:42:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50656 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnzpd-0000dO-Ud for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 06:42:06 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f54.google.com ([209.85.128.54]:52983) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnzpb-0000cs-9h for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 06:42:04 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f54.google.com with SMTP id he13so17357674wmb.2 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 03:42:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681641717; x=1684233717; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=YiPql+Zvm6HE5fb2t0zg5k08BgqkdvTxLuNSy8XveFU=; b=GnCd+JkpNXPL/hsW7w4R4AH1K1JDLB0VuMTnxSAQmfCoTF72t5cM/zS7h7P7bAXYNA qMCqsE7HDxH0rzdjGnvV62u3Ps8lPm0uNxdRXdhSmoztJ5GMV/NgSSnzThMW2xWsu1gK bDoZj2tCHJ0rZFSdP4PXmLK8D/ijbSaHMbHkLjIHs79G4GAMBEBlzuhBVzV8TMovt1ei nJlC4nuSpCjPEDfxUq65Ft7ZdAnR3jH1el6R9QAA4qXjpMBBj9hT40Inw64dY/IE0Gt3 Tg9ByidoetIYAYnC9Ky7HHfF+ccioA3Qktrgvqvk4NplsoKHg9BaTabSzCXe06z9RyZq GWAw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681641717; x=1684233717; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YiPql+Zvm6HE5fb2t0zg5k08BgqkdvTxLuNSy8XveFU=; b=CBcR9Oh0IRQgNSV/gP/HegXNNg5EBHzfAX9GKVcagclH/qR61ancbpJp1Eo/DlUZTy muEuayvtN5U2QVDGA0h91k1eRtl33ojr8ZXuwrlfShQExLZEY2Tdph63S7lNbWnyNHiX 63ouquqFOrveTmmZOMhVmsW1p7MBCrQaTdHzJjEnS1f/aUCLAUbSp9Xllws5Jkq/zSTF buz0Jkij+xznMmiWpDvzxvixWhUFsBaOMv7Vv3hN5/GYBm9jrg/NAcA5EyBtYZWzwTK7 yUxJkw3DR4DG0xeSbZhQu2jCCor6Qi9Z1tYPssnwbMWpbQtBaVPJsxrkniXtcvEjwUuf AgIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cjRaq5bwrY3a7VyM0LmePl1okf+Lb0zfgDfmIPLJSyU3U5NKWB pmmqtFGLI5rwpyFrA/Z56sW4JvDPDPg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bqCYLMfiCMbmlJTgD2BmZmwgcpaKRoFg5MFzXJu+ct1ABUlxnEEb/T380rHY4eGxT2PtDR3g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3647:b0:3f1:727d:77a4 with SMTP id y7-20020a05600c364700b003f1727d77a4mr1038269wmq.39.1681641717220; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 03:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krug ([87.196.73.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9-20020a1c7309000000b003f0b1b8cd9bsm5873256wmb.4.2023.04.16.03.41.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 16 Apr 2023 03:41:56 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= To: Philip Kaludercic Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87r0sl100c.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:19:31 +0000") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> <83a5z9ckxw.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg79130e.fsf@posteo.net> <837cudcaik.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl100c.fsf@posteo.net> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:44:02 +0100 Message-ID: <874jpg14zx.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) Philip Kaludercic writes: > +--- > +*** New user option 'package-install-upgrade-built-in'. > +When enabled, 'package-install' can be used to install=20 > +newer versions of built-in packages. > + If this is the final version, at least please add to NEWS: "Note that you must set this variable to t early in your configuration if you expect to keep the existing behaviour of the Eglot and 'use-package' libraries after the upgrade to Emacs 29." Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 16 09:45:34 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Apr 2023 13:45:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50836 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1po2hB-0002fj-VQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 09:45:34 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:34793) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1po2h9-0002fT-Tw for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 09:45:32 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3E3F240166 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 15:45:25 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681652726; bh=pMPJhFbtaFzrRCreTxdJvQiWom2y2m+52geQBkCCUQ8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=dIvomFYoOfh92TS4dHj1LwxnLcUZ784SX4vTA3WW0hZ41Ud+V/AlBtI20UB6sWNXe 3TrA/tG0HjwjmOSyZ4ltcZyU59A7ozwmB1P3otVcuCg/G62Da06Mk814kP0QVBas22 B1h00WJ8MLc4u+jRvAAWd4devJBDlHoM3pezXQjBJeAYrhaAQFZ4DvPtHlByUNW8l/ IFmoxuFCl9Wdcxp883fRl/RPjuJm2o/5RYXpd5KFus337pKWeUOdM0fyn+6XG44YX2 HTcWRVxD/La8UcHFSCD5M3LUSmSin8hewfME0yiQEZYUZzPOrs4dw9Iu9IZmUgArNA 9+ik4+/epw+rQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PzrzT3bZjz9rxH; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 15:45:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <831qklc7q4.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 21:37:23 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> <83a5z9ckxw.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg79130e.fsf@posteo.net> <837cudcaik.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl100c.fsf@posteo.net> <831qklc7q4.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 13:45:24 +0000 Message-ID: <87edokq6tn.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:19:31 +0000 >> >> Sounds good to me. > > The patch LGTM, thanks. Please install it. Done. -- Philip Kaludercic From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 16 10:23:31 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Apr 2023 14:23:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52277 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1po3Hv-0004LL-Gw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 10:23:31 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f53.google.com ([209.85.128.53]:55155) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1po3Ht-0004L7-Cl for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 10:23:30 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f53.google.com with SMTP id q5so12474501wmo.4 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 07:23:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681655003; x=1684247003; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=nphFlz+sRXpNy6ooulQWijPepnYvdRlUO0ll9O+e48E=; b=OaSC9rHZPorXET3fRruljQ8d4eoxETc6i+vvoILE4RGc8DZvRry0yHtdMeYbzb638t faKQ66kM1pzG1+FrjlNVB1459vcOc32HfpERVj1Ln1xtYiS0FMkhNLUVoVTD0zJkoPl6 0cDtdZYcwIYpTbjA7xeM35F5jkxFzP6e3UiWv89748CLZDiROwLG7oF6Y3z42OcVaev0 PI4Hlq4dOQN6DRUFXsU3jEx01tye/Ath/NfJ+bva1mCrqDosTA7l5aXsYLV3ZyOGhhEC Ks7qXjt9CNJBxPzvE2E+V7Vv+LqqwF2vjLJktQ1EWu33Z13rNFygFm9oro/PM9LPutuy tCpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681655003; x=1684247003; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=nphFlz+sRXpNy6ooulQWijPepnYvdRlUO0ll9O+e48E=; b=ekBMRuBTp0FjCPlOKQt09ggtZkscSFNK4KHiq0RW6v1vmfo8J7L4SdN/Ic95rpJW1Y tDqhsgiNGLOdUbp0jAmvcFPbFsFyjj5obS/GvRsdGmfMDV6f9yL6JwOgkZCL5HERHZTY 0woqb/6IeGFxG7MgcwSzVBrYE5cnYLnYCesbY8C9dUlT4OlUbphoBjk72Oj4RuaCREOj E2mj81h2VTRCysYkgcPyCltt84iExXhD1aKC72F8e1D9D9RFHp0HKW0ppXgDjONjatZa 9gk6v91soWVHAKsvktYE7ZryeEgNt8sou12Ckm/NgYLZH9g/I2daO1Pauw5UuCOkhEg2 aXeg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9c+SsjkREjqOy5SC2i+L8bcvUQgNCC3X7O23+YNN8Acjbn8Pk6F chJh2C79qLL2LF3BvAt5mmA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bJ9DLMCyBujgjsGTbzswcdieMEeuMn7hC9WQsezLv6FN9pGh81R2oF1/J2WBvsv7hoJ/g4mg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:ce:b0:3f0:4734:bef8 with SMTP id u14-20020a05600c00ce00b003f04734bef8mr8550074wmm.39.1681655003304; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 07:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amdahl30 ([2a01:e0a:253:fe0:2ef0:5dff:fed2:7b49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c8-20020a05600c0a4800b003ee5fa61f45sm13145423wmq.3.2023.04.16.07.23.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 16 Apr 2023 07:23:22 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin_Le_Gouguec?= To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <874jpg14zx.fsf@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vor?= =?utf-8?Q?a=22's?= message of "Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:44:02 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> <83a5z9ckxw.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg79130e.fsf@posteo.net> <837cudcaik.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl100c.fsf@posteo.net> <874jpg14zx.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:23:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87h6tfj486.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > Philip Kaludercic writes: > >> +--- >> +*** New user option 'package-install-upgrade-built-in'. >> +When enabled, 'package-install' can be used to install=20 >> +newer versions of built-in packages. >> + > > If this is the final version, at least please add to NEWS: > > "Note that you must set this variable to t early in your configuration > if you expect to keep the existing behaviour of the Eglot and > 'use-package' libraries after the upgrade to Emacs 29." And/or something to the same effect in those packages's entries, which might have more chances of getting noticed? diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS index 0789fa49d75..a2160fa2a92 100644 --- a/etc/NEWS +++ b/etc/NEWS @@ -3249,6 +3249,12 @@ based on data provided by language servers using the= Language Server Protocol (LSP). See the new Info manual "(eglot) Top" for more. Also see "etc/EGLOT-NEWS". =20 +Note that by default, Emacs's package manager does not fetch updates +to built-in packages. If you would like to upgrade to new versions of +Eglot as they are released on GNU ELPA, enable the new user option +'package-install-upgrade-built-in' and re-install Eglot with +'package-install'. + +++ ** use-package: Declarative package configuration. use-package is now shipped with Emacs. It provides the 'use-package' @@ -3256,6 +3262,12 @@ macro, which allows you to isolate package configura= tion in your init file in a way that is declarative, tidy, and performance-oriented. See the new Info manual "(use-package) Top" for more. =20 +Note that by default, Emacs's package manager does not fetch updates +to built-in packages. If you would like to upgrade to new versions of +use-package as they are released on GNU ELPA, enable the new user +option 'package-install-upgrade-built-in' and re-install use-package +with 'package-install'. + --- ** New package 'wallpaper'. This package provides the command 'wallpaper-set', which sets the From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 16 11:12:20 2023 Received: (at 62720-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Apr 2023 15:12:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52323 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1po43A-0008HC-Cw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:12:20 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59730) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1po437-0008Gy-Sf for 62720-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:12:18 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1po432-0003Jb-Ef; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:12:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=1gQ6dNQavO9lC3PxM9kICbT7YXAryxrCQuzj/AEWjHQ=; b=FO1g+CGMtbW+ JTEGPAjfkSK2SEaUe9mh0Xac7cS/QE+pDIxw4B2Rtv3vhBrw28K3ozWrKDRL1Ehyyj/1t4gHXcz7x Vnd3fo+xk9bw/QrD4x8CNokeXZXtjzRgqW0heV4TEquj72kCBBN2qmRoEGT0ut7zS1c5Z6TKScFus F9Nfg7JNQ3svEgB00mYNflwD1/koEedNomZe21l1lteWN6tqVhkfrhBEB/Ec7knI/F6hmR2bsdI8H TtSvdFhhYZJxchsfLBCUNEKOnPCQjQTndBS54Oze5jgToEQcJxCTLdUzLfdC/1hss6ZEeORCSoSPN JENrNzWhI01/0yLGTniI0Q==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1po431-0002dp-KU; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:12:11 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 18:12:15 +0300 Message-Id: <838rerc14g.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Philip Kaludercic In-Reply-To: <87edokq6tn.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Sun, 16 Apr 2023 13:45:24 +0000) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> <83edolcqwl.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz452scu.fsf@posteo.net> <83a5z9ckxw.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg79130e.fsf@posteo.net> <837cudcaik.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sl100c.fsf@posteo.net> <831qklc7q4.fsf@gnu.org> <87edokq6tn.fsf@posteo.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720-done Cc: 62720-done@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 13:45:24 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Philip Kaludercic > >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org > >> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:19:31 +0000 > >> > >> Sounds good to me. > > > > The patch LGTM, thanks. Please install it. > > Done. Thanks, I'm therefore closing this bug. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 16 16:46:49 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Apr 2023 20:46:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52596 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1po9Gr-0003Kw-Kf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:46:49 -0400 Received: from wnew2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.27]:51585) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1po9Gq-0003Kj-AH for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:46:48 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330F22B07123; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:46:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:46:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681678001; x=1681681601; bh=TymE8YAmIHO52q+Z95fV8wlP17wUZBB3q9Z 5i5x6wcw=; b=LjMYHhopRxHyfQvcoiOAP2L9lZ5pLIDC7dsaV4sEhFkzbZ7y/26 biaMiykfb/lfzVI8tfO9dxfFN5VobWx7PIs+5qtJJX4BAXx/5ruYkvikmGJj8l// /aisytk40tSRQ0He9uK+ifySxLiFV9toP6+JSzx72sOFdr61ZrPckwj0izPjHhm0 V9aHSSY8P+iwM1e6oVaBGhAxFRAGkAJfSUf2NRn/k1l0j3H6nd2Ef4B4ZyFeqTkv AP6iNjuivCO6wACZuR4YjHhOr1921mEiIvWmV6TyqaI53d5tpAi8LBRKhntzx1Q9 nusI3MlWwMX1XhxamPqNBjH9x6kb9Tpeb2Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681678001; x=1681681601; bh=TymE8YAmIHO52q+Z95fV8wlP17wUZBB3q9Z 5i5x6wcw=; b=dxjUR6dhLhe/LHX7a9seuG1OImirBE0MvT0Ci0OuQDBRpW2jjmT WjC+vvJce+ssXjeoV9dUonFaC56m+aiAVtAXpCPdv6uMWX7mmKFwGLnZNJQXFPug utnRyQUnZKGVPtaTfYOxSLbQm0+S4itiF0hgs4Ph3QEueSCSHHXkoDD42wWl5c3j XbKNPnCBRgGV+fmYEREDzMRU/bv2w4XFanPXMBIcHKGS32bQAs/uvgV2VJp/wjkx kLVLq319xtBO41QPxfi4Gb0Lx3AUnvODjDAIkWNqSBSYN4SKeKC2htlD4pX217fr 5l2HEjTl5Riz9GJkvfqDpqsoDntHL1m9XNA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdelgedguddutdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeigfetveehveevffehledtueekieeikeeufeegudfgfeeghfdulefgfeev ledvveenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:46:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 23:46:37 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii , =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 14/04/2023 22:28, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > If, OTOH, > you think that it's imperative to allow_all_ users of Eglot with > Emacs 29 to upgrade to Eglot 1.14 (and 1.15, 1.16, etc., when those > become available), then we should release Emacs 29 with 1.14. Was this question about stability only? Because since we've decided in favor of stability of package.el, and against eglot's easy upgradability, I would suggest to backport Eglot 1.14 to emacs-29. Together with the fix for bug#62816. The improvement in eldoc's behavior is pretty stark. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 16 17:52:18 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Apr 2023 21:52:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52618 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1poAIE-0005Dg-3k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 17:52:18 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:46593) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1poAIC-0005DT-Jb for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 17:52:17 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f47.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1842e8a8825so28529323fac.13 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681681931; x=1684273931; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=g4/treMveff0SPXU57vEQBURvcEkA7SDK3pUuXgL7Sk=; b=EbvxlOF2BvGlAahc7Ha+DZoV00jflmcYNKONF9jVAUpM+heWFUCnUE3FXmsPoJclD2 nh4Eo5M1Tmfk8Ns7YbFnCyXK/aX2LQmvd6ozmu/r2H7jEciA7E6VmN7wdwNGAtvPnsLQ ywC19+wpH2ZPdCGdEvZNMB/LApg+5Au4AYqbyPr4HnX6L6TbDyt6n/UErd0kHBRS/YMe BzaYlPV6AqB5U91qOtmwA4SHfQtf1+QpW9sW2xJAu6szECQvO0byUkdUKjnbV82n+oTm 5tlisv9vxxY9nbUAR8CcPs1o9SOmsbpt72nu777dvh0ibGio7GuZD93QkfRqbgMJ1kXO hO7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681681931; x=1684273931; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=g4/treMveff0SPXU57vEQBURvcEkA7SDK3pUuXgL7Sk=; b=mFVPQmy5gl/7ghkL3OJWqK0pUO4amS2pR9wC5iaf6RHhkjrYaDl1ZR5LjK7GAWUQ4p TXVWKsTMmgdcXdzzdBOjhF8+3XUpnhYACsJx2BqvlUNblDUCzS1wlLRj4z+9nvk16/ax pYbHK7LKB7L3d0n3zamKy0cxoXIWi2V2iHWwRTZkzaLkR4Mn6Pr+s7Oj+JZ/c5THsPZ7 T5eifEHJs/eINJnKvwjjkxnkx5v2IIPR2KwA9DRo8FW7tjEM3Oe8q8BuWsF7YjUPhb22 Ip3w6dmgGugGOUEACuOIreh+kQt1CUyD/5XMB2IgcKpQXii9QZj2A6g0rViXPMZli17d nviQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dL/BiNFU9sX2KI9B83pQSdmCO+tIJbhXH99YEUMMVwGoXM/aYP GDpOjoyb3sd7JdO4qBa1ZuALSTZZvOHKAMD2yEg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bqRDmV5V0jA4rkX1bfC7ST1U2yebSZrfowxTxhBnBO7WlC4bZ8Mgto+fpRCYIRd4zYQwm1T02pbiJwEbBOiic= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:b608:b0:187:773a:3927 with SMTP id cm8-20020a056870b60800b00187773a3927mr6069874oab.5.1681681930875; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 14:52:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:54:05 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 9:46=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov wro= te: > > On 14/04/2023 22:28, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > If, OTOH, > > you think that it's imperative to allow_all_ users of Eglot with > > Emacs 29 to upgrade to Eglot 1.14 (and 1.15, 1.16, etc., when those > > become available), then we should release Emacs 29 with 1.14. > Was this question about stability only? > > Because since we've decided in favor of stability of package.el, and > against eglot's easy upgradability, Needlessly, I might add, since the simplest patch that did both things was completely ignored (except for you and Philip). > I would suggest to backport Eglot > 1.14 to emacs-29. Together with the fix for bug#62816. The improvement > in eldoc's behavior is pretty stark. I'm against that (though I could be convinced). Note that there are many things to backport, such as non-bugfix improvements in Eglot's dependencies= , which would _also_ have to be backported. In this case ElDoc 1.14. And if you want the full "stark improvement" package for the echo-area flooding business, Flymake would likely also need to be backported. Besides, by the time Emacs 29 is released. Eglot will probably be at 1.15 or even more with the "breadcrumb headline" feature request of bug#58431, a class hierarchy browser and a few others. We could cherry-pick the backports you think are most valuable though, like bug#62816 (ask to reopen there and convince Eli that the fix is sound) and maybe a few more. I'd support that. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 16 22:24:54 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Apr 2023 02:24:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52759 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1poEY2-0004Rh-Ib for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:24:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38510) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1poEY0-0004RQ-Ml for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:24:53 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1poEXu-0005oL-5h; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:24:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=uDs5eMWfc5rExxu4hSC1frbBujG2fWKd42eF0bcbGaM=; b=cQQdCdDym3SS lkDuov4Qu2VjTNX42wwQiFvDFJaN2w9gHbceOZp/PRW33aY1PXLMdvRUxdG54HRVfCSyMLAAUGQ55 PkPZQTROWRjw35SjQ38o6HmZ7REohMjggznIxhMJhJcXiNzFXHTmyw9F3qWiQ2M7Q91mcj+cZoyCS oEZaO4hLG6QLHJipDh9M1iRufufC22G1184unIUGrqnoY9KHtsl+dj3STVM0Tvo5TjkfXAu3VuIFq yzhPgcDRZ3RNfVThYIlzYieuV3o9hO0xUlFj9ZmLGGQu1+DTvCPPnuAipZqsWZVrqISG9Mkru5kaQ ILr2+cITsbxJEK0Z0vS1rw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1poEXt-00011J-AX; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:24:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 05:24:49 +0300 Message-Id: <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sun, 16 Apr 2023 23:46:37 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 23:46:37 +0300 > Cc: rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 14/04/2023 22:28, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > If, OTOH, > > you think that it's imperative to allow_all_ users of Eglot with > > Emacs 29 to upgrade to Eglot 1.14 (and 1.15, 1.16, etc., when those > > become available), then we should release Emacs 29 with 1.14. > > Was this question about stability only? It was about the criteria for which versions of core packages to ship with a release. > Because since we've decided in favor of stability of package.el, and > against eglot's easy upgradability, I would suggest to backport Eglot > 1.14 to emacs-29. I won't object. In fact, I asked up front why not. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 16 22:30:07 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Apr 2023 02:30:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52774 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1poEd5-0004bv-Cu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:30:07 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55346) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1poEd2-0004Zt-F8 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:30:06 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1poEcw-0007AP-L2; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:29:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=AAMfeyFRG0a/0YEh98DGi4CeiC7sfa2StHvaLKXevMk=; b=APvzQZylaxjhNl3CAe/D nOM3S3jIsMKq+k3VpuCBd/SWL6SutPlQJHerDdw5pBzYZ4k8bHWjOSQyeGhYfoIqtOMJGNuMzGRv9 aJlGO2SraxQa3uXk4ZS9K+snLSRTO+1WjTkhEy/ZdyZTdT//RrZ6qEFgi3gwgrAo+jwuwnzNzDY0I 3r8EKoagky0t9CnYQ+jx+zUSuuNiJKULoeAH7xRTKKNIUKyUPnQe6M1SfJOOG3VvlCrhqU0wvqEO0 7p04JlSCGmu5wOT28OE6TjrNR5rAImKZzhb4xHGPe7TEHXI4frIuW/0FIY7H1TpOhVVHWEPP0Obyc BdcMAwFKH/EQ+A==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1poEcv-0001QA-Un; Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:29:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 05:30:02 +0300 Message-Id: <83leir9r6d.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:54:05 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:54:05 +0100 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > Besides, by the time Emacs 29 is released. Eglot will probably be at > 1.15 or even more with the "breadcrumb headline" feature request of > bug#58431, a class hierarchy browser and a few others. What would prevent us from upgrading Eglot on the release branch to 1.15, when that becomes available? The Org folks already merge every change on their stable branch to the Emacs release branch, right up to the release date. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 17 21:25:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2023 01:25:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57252 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1poa5o-0006dr-IS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 21:25:13 -0400 Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.229]:50423) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1poa5m-0006dc-Vs for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 21:25:11 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE76582472; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 21:25:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 17 Apr 2023 21:25:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681781105; x=1681784705; bh=sBNSLpUIvwZaCziALNurkguUnNiQcFHDDBW +Nszzsk4=; b=Dp9UtM75SKiqNA/nV1Ztegrsx911XLAPVh6dV7mUWCzqmOT1U7+ BbjdCOMybQ123SrILureeoSFf32cYcMAlDysAWEDtMISAW/60UGTFBZun72xir7L c+kYx92Q8frJiTwvJFT1gYZIePAhDWYpBVDvC47ggVCREjpqjEp+FcFrpJmbPOn8 oZUg2lPJW9nzjwGSBydgxat9MKeeQMyqEZkKYAXdqRngIfNTt1qhNSlp1V5cKEMO whf3s8lq4mf4vUm/L+tCKk5KyUDbGCeveTeUslqeMxABJdzLvzBJDT4/Vs9Hetaw d23MdhgIr3gchNbeyxPFgFcHE5fCMx4IESw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681781105; x=1681784705; bh=sBNSLpUIvwZaCziALNurkguUnNiQcFHDDBW +Nszzsk4=; b=Q+NM+tMxfAsBcDC0EHjUzGGPTXTbqQgFBsU0eXQv63SP5RcFjpJ 7/5VNm5HfUkMIbf4cPkyWHrSacAwS+/pBeLHir6WHYh1bWBfvpMiUTw8qoQ1EQc7 JM9AQxEM400/Fo0PQaEoFrCeEgqg/WCO2LuEG3CwQdQ21uZ74DebIQ7UIXZ4k3PL awGXf+PmIUQ8vtIDX5R//u8fCEAUblutD29ISHxceICZoMg/BFewdcNX5tvULRdI lQoRWcm/Rtz6DFEoMe6R3M3axhNR/U59h4d4nN9hc+DOdK6y0msr5iU56UvTXVcX 1HahW/BtQj8e1yt33/R9UJbZLYmxUpNmWsw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdeljedggeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 21:25:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:25:01 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 17/04/2023 05:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 23:46:37 +0300 >> Cc: rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >> On 14/04/2023 22:28, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> If, OTOH, >>> you think that it's imperative to allow_all_ users of Eglot with >>> Emacs 29 to upgrade to Eglot 1.14 (and 1.15, 1.16, etc., when those >>> become available), then we should release Emacs 29 with 1.14. >> >> Was this question about stability only? > > It was about the criteria for which versions of core packages to ship > with a release. I don't think we can get a single set of criteria across core packages. E.g. Org is developed externally, has its own community of significant size, and does split off release branches (with additional testing, I',m guessing). Eglot, OTOH, is developed only here, with no additional release workflow other than what MELPA/GNU ELPA historically provided: collect up some features/fixes, bump the Version header, and push a new release out to the users. The lack of extended testing period is made up for with the capability to push out a new fixed version overnight. That's why the difficulty in upgrading to the latest version (for Emacs 29 users) is going to hurt. BTW, if you recall the threads before Eglot was added, I was against that, and one of the things I cited is an LSP client has inherently high development velocity. Maybe the LSP community will settle/mature/stop adding features one day, but it's not there yet. >> Because since we've decided in favor of stability of package.el, and >> against eglot's easy upgradability, I would suggest to backport Eglot >> 1.14 to emacs-29. > > I won't object. In fact, I asked up front why not. Note that that suggestion comes with a fix to eldoc which you so far have rejected for emacs-29. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 18 07:44:43 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2023 11:44:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58025 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pojlL-0006ga-6D for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:44:43 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f52.google.com ([209.85.160.52]:51458) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pojlJ-0006gL-8L for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:44:42 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-18785f07525so216540fac.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:44:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681818275; x=1684410275; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=B7heRkrC1ym20UYZnAcTfQMRpAUTeOk3yOFsNSxEWYc=; b=r9JxgVrj9A/TyGaVcrO1dysIOGSH2f2UP8Xq2eKY+G84ydN8HrojWCSpNmYjZOc3SF BJEdP8scOPN96yzxMAXVIZjh4U3JxyUOXHox47/vxovigeglYLvkAvcQ2b4tthRahwo/ E6UGtuyEKvbkomsF8G4BihS7oZ+Fb7Tub3F8MxgRqATNQZs+CzPPuPD+ZUi45JPs6AKr FFWFstP0uzCMheZY3f+QiqHqZExmXsDjVotwRRrkGrtbgwWFnD/YIWaaOwwFcUw4bri1 VTQzz2lZWghN/P44tc5QeJnG8sByCNt4RIAyIPeQj4irSxc1Noyb6G6+7XanZ18LXKT8 gYEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681818275; x=1684410275; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=B7heRkrC1ym20UYZnAcTfQMRpAUTeOk3yOFsNSxEWYc=; b=YLH/OnF+tGTCQLVG9pKaT+9jTgVL7XI0foPMN6Brx0kCWbq7isFZGHkJot2cUstvI+ 6z3zyH5fFiZdb0lDOeuMlxwNmnH5Vyx6Pn99VfXM1xPCdiyOrahODAIpvR0RLmUc+9bj 418MwRrvl0twjD3Nd5NR+JwJjeeIzDHOKXjLnAZFj/pVkF7HvqvSbZWs90KciiMM02Rt y/tan3UuLBbg950r+3lb76A9DCWwccLW4gJNJHyrQYthRRlscu/yvRrM0y/7CngHS3wl P5U9LRDomeP5++/Zb1m9Tlz4hriOztTveaxXlkUh0+QeZkK2aXVgxymDzKIVuDMUKChg DT8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dQFWNi3JAaE41Ubfr188XDkZGM9oztQskv7c400/TYgWPBvRCH pNkswo/8aok1tSilQsykHjcBdeJpxP8ZvLWsV3Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bKrJxrFMUOG1hCDz20shbZSqJIdABH+nFLhdN0XTf26C8H5C1TwrCZLD2uadLg5Ak2UpJFhSoYTB6UPzHpxRE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:3906:b0:187:9bf2:af63 with SMTP id b6-20020a056870390600b001879bf2af63mr928723oap.5.1681818275348; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:44:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:44:24 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 2:25=E2=80=AFAM Dmitry Gutov wro= te: > > It was about the criteria for which versions of core packages to ship > > with a release. > > I don't think we can get a single set of criteria across core packages. Agree. We should have categories and understand what is surprising or workflow-breaking and what is not. > BTW, if you recall the threads before Eglot was added, I was against > that, and one of the things I cited is an LSP client has inherently high > development velocity. Maybe the LSP community will settle/mature/stop > adding features one day, but it's not there yet. Very true, but the conclusion is only half-true. It didn't have to be like this: Eglot _can_ grow rapidly in master and and have its periodic stable releases. And in the major Emacs versions released to the public could have an even stabler release (because it went through more testing). This is just like any other :core package until now. The solution picked for this issue is bad in that it breaks some Eglot users workflows and expectations when using very common configuration recipes. We should revert it and pick a fix that relies on recognizing that there are different "sets of criteria" as you propose. One such fix remains uncriticized and unchallenged in this thread. But if that doesn't happen, we shouldn't make a bad situation worse, by backporting 100's of lines of code of Eglot and friends into Emacs 29. That's the polar opposite in the pursuit of stability. Hand-picked bugfixes for problems manifesting themselves in Emacs 29, sure! But wholesale changes are just asking for trouble and destroying the value of the pretest and RC periods. As bug#62907 shows, there are certain edge-case bugs due to refactorings in upcoming Eglot 1.15 that are not in 1.12.29 bundled with Emacs 29. Good! That's the way it should be. Let's not ruin that. > >> Because since we've decided in favor of stability of package.el, and > >> against eglot's easy upgradability, I would suggest to backport Eglot > >> 1.14 to emacs-29. > > > > I won't object. In fact, I asked up front why not. > > Note that that suggestion comes with a fix to eldoc which you so far > have rejected for emacs-29. ...to name but one change to the non-Eglot, already-there-in-Emacs-28, libraries Eglot depends on (or will depend on). I do think _that_ ElDoc fix should be just backported. It's not a complicated fix by any measure, it's easy to test, and it indeed has value and safety. Together with your similar fix for Company, it'll make Emacs 29 users happier. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 18 16:38:33 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2023 20:38:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60519 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pos5x-00075R-2S for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:38:33 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:53687) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pos5s-000758-O1 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:38:31 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70515822FC; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:38:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681850303; x=1681853903; bh=6GSxkk/Ip0+SKuM9ZS36HI4PbCL5ocILOCz oG0jQgJ0=; b=Qq/T1xgmgoi6y69i4UVibB+VM0ZvhqPdFDAs26BP9zm+Elw8DAz IXcojhLoEk1wvu5QeGJ6ySIEl3Ra1XEl4cSFyG+dohR6lGO06tyju1Ya45s9QdNZ u0dUXZyvxF2oalllUUGCKaQd+Zeb7ETBW6HqW1D6e5a/SVKfpJUhgU4h2a5lH30s tMbq2tDrK8cRJDyZ495OzcsZ3Zdyd/iNAJjR6ooY5q36z3CNVYiAPOvVAc8iPx2X h0Twhe+/AcdncyBqOeEJM15PHqQEnL46CJ3+dN11/4lbngoF3us0BN6YaHATP5T3 DlzA5WU7RQHJQZIf4Fh9DlMNxlGXVM3kSFw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681850303; x=1681853903; bh=6GSxkk/Ip0+SKuM9ZS36HI4PbCL5ocILOCz oG0jQgJ0=; b=kD6h2D1XflOuNn1Vhns+Dse4prn/etHyKMQietkI+UQcKOJAanP LKPSmDE1gpMxT+8dbWHp/TX2AqC7jhDmVmzxl0MXHNjYIre2+vxPMxFeEdwNcwMA h0K3rlZVI7EXSHqKpaFn/fX67b7O8TTzd5IOKyhAMtvVf+OOt22q+pRZcYOUjnU/ SIZc9xJpwRTsCyFmIF2kKixtsaIoJddd64BsEcmtVmdlNB2k9DQtnRyj2IqelUj5 syq4id80QmLFIPWjFqHF8pOqX60Ecl1jcps2bETdQgDIN1/2a+vo2EredNI0DdZs 7GKkV6tErC9+iDvDRoDn5sEU8KIf5APzaPQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdelkedgudehudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpefhffehleejffegffeugefhkeektdffgfehjedvgeejtedtudehueffgffg feejheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:38:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 23:38:19 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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: -2.9 (--) On 18/04/2023 14:44, João Távora wrote: >> BTW, if you recall the threads before Eglot was added, I was against >> that, and one of the things I cited is an LSP client has inherently high >> development velocity. Maybe the LSP community will settle/mature/stop >> adding features one day, but it's not there yet. > > Very true, but the conclusion is only half-true. > > It didn't have to be like this: Eglot _can_ grow rapidly in master > and and have its periodic stable releases. And in the major Emacs > versions released to the public could have an even stabler release > (because it went through more testing). This is just like any other > :core package until now. This particular one didn't have to, but it's a problem very characteristic of joining a strongly centralized project with ultimately one person having the last word in all major decisions. And it's not like Eli is being unreasonable: we do need a stability cutoff, and we're really long past it. These one-more-change kind of arguments repeat year over year, with reasonable, well-intentioned people on both sides. I don't see any better solutions than better modularity (which delegates responsibility by its nature) and/or more frequent releases somehow. > The solution picked for this issue is bad in that it breaks some Eglot > users workflows and expectations when using very common configuration > recipes. We should revert it and pick a fix that relies on recognizing > that there are different "sets of criteria" as you propose. One > such fix remains uncriticized and unchallenged in this thread. Sure, and I agree, but I don't really see how to present that in terms Eli would feel suitable to accept. One "trick" that worked in the past was to somehow enumerate all potential execution flows (functions involved, etc) that would be affected by the change. > But if that doesn't happen, we shouldn't make a bad situation worse, > by backporting 100's of lines of code of Eglot and friends into Emacs 29. > That's the polar opposite in the pursuit of stability. Hand-picked > bugfixes for problems manifesting themselves in Emacs 29, sure! But > wholesale changes are just asking for trouble and destroying the > value of the pretest and RC periods. As bug#62907 shows, there are > certain edge-case bugs due to refactorings in upcoming Eglot 1.15 > that are not in 1.12.29 bundled with Emacs 29. Good! That's the way > it should be. Let's not ruin that. I don't insist, not at all. It was just my own impression of what would constitute a reasonable Eglot release that we could be satisfied with having a large number of people use without upgrading, for years. Issues like blinking eldoc messages, or eldoc messages that can take up half the height of the window seem like things that we wouldn't want in it. Perhaps the second issue affects only a minority of servers, and I'm wrong to be worried. Because otherwise, I really don't understand why it hasn't been reported and fixed until recently. Not blaming you, just to be clear. >>>> Because since we've decided in favor of stability of package.el, and >>>> against eglot's easy upgradability, I would suggest to backport Eglot >>>> 1.14 to emacs-29. >>> >>> I won't object. In fact, I asked up front why not. >> >> Note that that suggestion comes with a fix to eldoc which you so far >> have rejected for emacs-29. > > ...to name but one change to the non-Eglot, already-there-in-Emacs-28, > libraries Eglot depends on (or will depend on). > > I do think _that_ ElDoc fix should be just backported. It's not > a complicated fix by any measure, it's easy to test, and it indeed > has value and safety. Together with your similar fix for Company, > it'll make Emacs 29 users happier. That's what I'm thinking, too. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 18 16:54:59 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2023 20:54:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60545 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1posLr-0007g1-2O for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:54:59 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:51705) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1posLm-0007ez-RK for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:54:58 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-18785f07525so507173fac.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681851289; x=1684443289; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=be/M1cJAJEtkV4/Ir0/ZnXClFPzglrhIUiZARYOpgS8=; b=aI6ecUBUlG3s2WwtTjL7td9FcG3Rys5XUpvJwciPQSvWABvhNv5OqAmzlQabI9cw+z ZD5RgZujK9WVkscDXLd4u9sjv7ePCvRDQKSgfliRf+W5q03a/XFh60UDJw7XLcuvV6YF xIVt9vA/wrsGQaBPXKecQbq5aKzKg3WDyoOMpe1hVjWlYO9XmEFnOjBClBXDhNuqKjaT rbCz5Vo32SyE8rIGsf5fbkJgJb+CMUnu/mEtIK2YOfDnd74Utnqt/IgXd9WPC3oflegu UBX+lB78PRtItZDwDhxwPbeAKaLtxRx7TW6Tj+l2bkpwj6rCIp050W8KSOFcJq03ECpt MAaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681851289; x=1684443289; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=be/M1cJAJEtkV4/Ir0/ZnXClFPzglrhIUiZARYOpgS8=; b=WPlW7p3bwnwwAcdFZT7NsAbzaEPijlbXVpzT/eUn17FY5dWsMVApQW3/zbYc0X0bmT /uYONFuW5ByETDg8qi7iDDpFX7XLGPJEU7c6ZPyE66GAC0Y4F1keKwA3M8yyWTI75Zg+ L/hXDw9q3VTKDi66oz/mD3sK2hTZ/60IJ2Df4+pNVjHlbEIvtiRu1qM1OJ9Ez7VAxgOy qnRETdKUzMOee7jRsaL6q1AEUrE/r0tdG98XcPrnRm0VnMD/rKSHbmVqNO3Kbgkc803E +eXXYy/8bRERkfM3OFLomZplHz71K34doTYIxB7xCb2vLGNkJeYzHLV55k73c/O+N+pU VzLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ezPI/Xxzwd1LsvdLfJdH7NJLC3KKCPpBMP95iNp+BCKrQNfN6G /Hn8JG5DjOT6B8Fn4hr4BsUKCA5fzt7P8Z4in2Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350a794nG9mjLCINNy3e7L/KO5fZqOhm2ODH8fKDrvCrqKVHh/IY3rbS1W/UGCTRK3eodfY9jsQazH9aAp1N9Ooo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:3906:b0:187:9bf2:af63 with SMTP id b6-20020a056870390600b001879bf2af63mr1716952oap.5.1681851289112; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 13:54:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 21:56:43 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 9:38=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov wro= te: > This particular one didn't have to, but it's a problem very > characteristic of joining a strongly centralized project with ultimately > one person having the last word in all major decisions. And it's not > like Eli is being unreasonable: we do need a stability cutoff, and we're > really long past it. These one-more-change kind of arguments repeat year > over year, with reasonable, well-intentioned people on both sides. Yes. And here both people sides "one more change". The change that _did_ make it in is more aggressive and more unstable than the one that didn't. And I repeat it didn't (and doesn't) have to be like this for Eglot and Emacs 29. It could have been a minor decision, not a "major" one. > Sure, and I agree, but I don't really see how to present that in terms > Eli would feel suitable to accept. One "trick" that worked in the past > was to somehow enumerate all potential execution flows (functions > involved, etc) that would be affected by the change. Right. And IMO it's not a "trick", it's how it should be. It's hard to pr= ove a negative, but at least it should be attempted. Well, the patch I presented (the one you +1'ed) makes it so that package-install keeps exactly its prev= ious behaviour unless its argument is one of (eglot use-package), which are argu= ments that could not have ever been passed to that function as :core packages in Emacs 28. M-x package-install RET seq or (package-install 'xref) keep EX= ACTLY the same behaviour. It's very clear to see from the minimal patch. > I don't insist, not at all. It was just my own impression of what would > constitute a reasonable Eglot release that we could be satisfied with > having a large number of people use without upgrading, for years. Issues > like blinking eldoc messages, or eldoc messages that can take up half > the height of the window seem like things that we wouldn't want in it. The issue has existed and has been worked around successfully for a long period of time. It's not actually a problem, it's a consequence of the default values for eldoc-echo-area-use-multiline-p and max-mini-window-heig= ht, both of which predate Eglot. Of course I think the current behaviour is better. But it's also different= so I don't think we should backport that particular one. Even if so far the only feedback we have had has been positive, it could well be that some people _liked_ the half-the-window-height thing (after all their customizat= ion options reflected that wish, even if by default). And by the way, not really half-the-window. I used this for a long time without being much bothered by it. > Perhaps the second issue affects only a minority of servers, and I'm > wrong to be worried. Because otherwise, I really don't understand why it > hasn't been reported and fixed until recently. Not blaming you, just to > be clear. It was reported a long time ago. By you and others. But there wasn't the means -- or rather the energy from my part -- to fix it. I couldn't just have truncated that information. So I enhanced ElDoc instead with the :echo option. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 18 17:06:24 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2023 21:06:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60557 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1posWt-00080Z-O2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:06:24 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:38131) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1posWh-000806-56 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:06:22 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE825820CE; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:06:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681851965; x=1681855565; bh=lJJVxhNxXo/v2yGqLVPf/+iTRjhsBfp149a rKSuOiF0=; b=WasM5iWL8IxFqMKbv88xvAU7+eHEQnu3MvGiMptJ/V95hV+0bEu z9LAWKJ15QeWwcHUg0sUrRsBeGYzf11a2sW6BdsPjCgQIGD/XodKMVXToh7Maipn q0dUoZpqS/pJVSJrZBoHzFO2ruEJze2QtSONNBgXGyd+0g+1PaNBh70IeB1Mwdsc XrrLnSqBq/9y+YSlzr+dHd4ZFXks42t5W42KTTYIyd1BUkQhlrotkPTATVOWXMT8 ktdS7/C53zttpdr3dIhS1ukgKsVQObp7exef+N98+8G0EmPFkKj2jqLqtsyRDqW3 CT8p9XRiFhXvXpQWFuH6Bcs7+DdHEQcn/ig== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681851965; x=1681855565; bh=lJJVxhNxXo/v2yGqLVPf/+iTRjhsBfp149a rKSuOiF0=; b=ifBnB1G4p6Y/kRdDdc8/xbQzKiop61uKzAuSMg5uIjyBaqN5gGD J9hXroxfDY/N6r93Ubd+jzqtA1EX5NJ8xEhS+LVB8xFlpcsxcDhdGp9TFkknOZGW mI6Bwp88Cn7+YRjZD7mcbKX3Iq+kmJEpnj/u45OxjwRKWfdWEATblgYFqFIXKPkY pIymzHXbNZMCemy6+mf++MN9QgZ90awtOV1oQaB/OSzd0/mZMR5ip9h5vi51xg3k pQ5ygut1G0KKpMzjE3IPcCRuziItYTtfE2/KTQraJ36vr31sjWtGTkSivmEGj0qe xEb503FAFptgegYJAJfEBrcwA14z/wpsvwQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdelkedgudehjecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpedvteffkedtffdtleeltdegtdduudffhfdvieelgfefudejhfehieeuuefg heegueenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:06:01 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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: -2.9 (--) On 18/04/2023 23:56, João Távora wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 9:38 PM Dmitry Gutov wrote: > >> This particular one didn't have to, but it's a problem very >> characteristic of joining a strongly centralized project with ultimately >> one person having the last word in all major decisions. And it's not >> like Eli is being unreasonable: we do need a stability cutoff, and we're >> really long past it. These one-more-change kind of arguments repeat year >> over year, with reasonable, well-intentioned people on both sides. > > Yes. And here both people sides "one more change". The change that _did_ > make it in is more aggressive and more unstable than the one that didn't. Well, not really. It's by definition more conservative one. Problem is, it violates a practice established by third-party community outside of Emacs. >> Sure, and I agree, but I don't really see how to present that in terms >> Eli would feel suitable to accept. One "trick" that worked in the past >> was to somehow enumerate all potential execution flows (functions >> involved, etc) that would be affected by the change. > > Right. And IMO it's not a "trick", it's how it should be. It's hard to prove a > negative, but at least it should be attempted. Well, the patch I presented > (the one you +1'ed) makes it so that package-install keeps exactly its previous > behaviour unless its argument is one of (eglot use-package), which are arguments > that could not have ever been passed to that function as :core packages > in Emacs 28. M-x package-install RET seq or (package-install 'xref) keep EXACTLY > the same behaviour. It's very clear to see from the minimal patch. Perhaps a more structured/verbose outline of the same would help. Although apparently the example I was thinking of (https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=37774#479 and the surrounding thread) occurred when the corresponding pretest hadn't started yet. >> I don't insist, not at all. It was just my own impression of what would >> constitute a reasonable Eglot release that we could be satisfied with >> having a large number of people use without upgrading, for years. Issues >> like blinking eldoc messages, or eldoc messages that can take up half >> the height of the window seem like things that we wouldn't want in it. > > The issue has existed and has been worked around successfully for a long > period of time. It's not actually a problem, it's a consequence of the > default values for eldoc-echo-area-use-multiline-p and max-mini-window-height, > both of which predate Eglot. So there is a workaround for it anyway, thanks for the reminder. > Of course I think the current behaviour is better. But it's also different so > I don't think we should backport that particular one. Even if so far the > only feedback we have had has been positive, it could well be that some > people _liked_ the half-the-window-height thing (after all their customization > options reflected that wish, even if by default). > > And by the way, not really half-the-window. I used this for a long time > without being much bothered by it. I guess it depends on the number of overloads for the function around point. >> Perhaps the second issue affects only a minority of servers, and I'm >> wrong to be worried. Because otherwise, I really don't understand why it >> hasn't been reported and fixed until recently. Not blaming you, just to >> be clear. > > It was reported a long time ago. By you and others. But there wasn't > the means -- or rather the energy from my part -- to fix it. I couldn't > just have truncated that information. So I enhanced ElDoc instead with > the :echo option. Aha, so the :echo thingy made it possible. Gotcha. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 18 17:13:22 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2023 21:13:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60563 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1posde-0008AQ-DN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:13:22 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f45.google.com ([209.85.161.45]:45624) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1posda-0008AA-QZ for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:13:20 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f45.google.com with SMTP id bg38-20020a056820082600b005421db6ed5bso2654199oob.12 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:13:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681852393; x=1684444393; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=ZRdE/I7jEmRYkUFfVVaxzCbURGVhmK66Q/hmdCwkOmg=; b=hxlrht35iVK5bb/NTqqqcIp3oZLejJqRMF4MBzUCk+hzD5nO31ki3x1pxe3J2OEXI5 gU5SqlHPC9Y4D8BI68pF8+nzBZHsOyQcgHxOpzWEDbwPiDyqe9t8J15Y6L0owRhfMFKq TMYxmTWd1615Zz5988Smam0Nr0xQA+QREWQapwe4I76tgM4pGi0ayruAwNdr/PAekZwg S3oLR+Z+mqb2roNCymTf727mbmMtN7o5Bb/S6+nbllVJy+fsp8J3Byje7vaLZRlJ/6r6 JRbVc2GPuKD9Rt+gh/kCZOF9khCfYVB8cgqgCzHpTc6qVb9+oe7ZWu+CaqUTkxhenFj2 1LMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681852393; x=1684444393; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ZRdE/I7jEmRYkUFfVVaxzCbURGVhmK66Q/hmdCwkOmg=; b=B7Dj1Ri34qWyYKH6El59CJ4REww1W/41O1R7CNmyQ27Va18CFfdtyERrp7+FYJsWdH sypEtaJRBEah/I+allE/qtROwlsjfjnITU2qn2WZdlFZG1L/H/U7Bv8x+oms//5RsX2e ODGYwPHVZR36GuyjFPaZhldUKSZy8WWGIi8+l/6Wy4KbmrTGdKhXlBbps5uyf2lG8MKp 1ITBp3MQR/QVguh43ThenCP0HlpPq5v1Y0OznaMEc898qoufFC2X1/QJMqB8f68EiwCq VwuP29LNRxtbtp+36myLbgJZ9gacdTG2lMlJE1ZsB4GtBkFEFJWMZ03VwVzic7Tvp2MK tZZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fCwF5ZNMKs1xNY+wVLPHIJdlUujzK7ClTZSg7xyEoSoIkYTo/c FZvMscGNiZ/m+SmqWMa2yu/pE4MxzGlQXgbcyAs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YPHxszAfIlSuKbyYmVfqhqUe4ZOe9k5k3y9sriX5Db4i/15YonaO+Xama/9GoiycWn2w6oSLvlPq3T48JouGI= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:45c5:0:b0:546:9aa2:1da2 with SMTP id y188-20020a4a45c5000000b005469aa21da2mr3751621ooa.1.1681852392861; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:13:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 22:15:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:06=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov wr= ote: > > On 18/04/2023 23:56, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 9:38=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov = wrote: > > > >> This particular one didn't have to, but it's a problem very > >> characteristic of joining a strongly centralized project with ultimate= ly > >> one person having the last word in all major decisions. And it's not > >> like Eli is being unreasonable: we do need a stability cutoff, and we'= re > >> really long past it. These one-more-change kind of arguments repeat ye= ar > >> over year, with reasonable, well-intentioned people on both sides. > > > > Yes. And here both people sides "one more change". The change that _di= d_ > > make it in is more aggressive and more unstable than the one that didn'= t. > > Well, not really. It's by definition more conservative one. Problem is, > it violates a practice established by third-party community outside of > Emacs. Hence, more unstable. There aren't watertight borders here. These users in the "third-party" community are using nothing but Emacs and GNU ELPA Eglot, those are the users that we're hurting while to protect the non Eglot users. But why on earth can't we protect the non-Eglot users and not screw the Eglot users. We can, with a simpler change. > >> Sure, and I agree, but I don't really see how to present that in terms > >> Eli would feel suitable to accept. One "trick" that worked in the past > >> was to somehow enumerate all potential execution flows (functions > >> involved, etc) that would be affected by the change. > > > > Right. And IMO it's not a "trick", it's how it should be. It's hard t= o prove a > > negative, but at least it should be attempted. Well, the patch I prese= nted > > (the one you +1'ed) makes it so that package-install keeps exactly its = previous > > behaviour unless its argument is one of (eglot use-package), which are = arguments > > that could not have ever been passed to that function as :core packages > > in Emacs 28. M-x package-install RET seq or (package-install 'xref) kee= p EXACTLY > > the same behaviour. It's very clear to see from the minimal patch. > > Perhaps a more structured/verbose outline of the same would help. It's 7 lines of code. Elisp should be trivial to read. Eli read much more complicated code in this thread. > > Of course I think the current behaviour is better. But it's also diffe= rent so > > I don't think we should backport that particular one. Even if so far t= he > > only feedback we have had has been positive, it could well be that some > > people _liked_ the half-the-window-height thing (after all their custom= ization > > options reflected that wish, even if by default). > > > > And by the way, not really half-the-window. I used this for a long tim= e > > without being much bothered by it. > > I guess it depends on the number of overloads for the function around poi= nt. I'm using C++ ;-) > >> Perhaps the second issue affects only a minority of servers, and I'm > >> wrong to be worried. Because otherwise, I really don't understand why = it > >> hasn't been reported and fixed until recently. Not blaming you, just t= o > >> be clear. > > > > It was reported a long time ago. By you and others. But there wasn't > > the means -- or rather the energy from my part -- to fix it. I couldn'= t > > just have truncated that information. So I enhanced ElDoc instead with > > the :echo option. > > Aha, so the :echo thingy made it possible. Gotcha. Right, which is also the reason it makes even _less_ sense to bring Eglot 1.15 into Emacs 29 _without_ ElDoc (I hope that plan is now completely off the table). Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 18 17:20:35 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2023 21:20:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60568 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1poskd-0008Lr-HQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:20:35 -0400 Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.230]:53743) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1poskZ-0008Lc-So for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:20:35 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDBA58251A; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:20:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:20:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1681852826; x=1681856426; bh=X3RulrwoTXnOVNzf99q0TfJFrUD0+4urj5g DnCRyjwk=; b=B8hm3aMkLb9gIIHloXfyDvWAHp23WWYfUSaMoB3HxxCsMej7Kib 5N1owpJhqx2gT3f/I158pGdyPHokCrZoDm6ap8mcGTSQPdSux4T8iAzEoiRQJ0TI Y6iWruj3odQnJIhLlbwcwQvc56SJORVYZiA3dTtlCaOJgZdjRS5xwb7CnfLDdTmh MsJFHsgIBQShKfBT7PS/VtOfvn000hWjA/YDhvP3X0cauzpKr60sZ6txDdwejTkr 6WOOrIrrqCUILHC9bRNHGiP5Rd0gd7XZ5x4ND/wpmFN1gprNDU6YQo/zDH91fw+n Oqmdjae2vmJO61ftD5ckcAvcksS0C1JiL3Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681852826; x=1681856426; bh=X3RulrwoTXnOVNzf99q0TfJFrUD0+4urj5g DnCRyjwk=; b=UVIAwZVOEV1AnrXSbCqfNiknBJp+QEFjQe9BkuW5lfgWyNQj2XM nYg0rA4EHyYvHTm3ul+9GfG2f5x+gOPbDPKGLidoRB6o5yAopUeo/4mpYbEaAaMs w3GWAKfnn2+6APufa48MCOn5HMwuMZTXp7CEA4PvDwmCWG3GeLJay0+MMa6yocTj r79DFYsqlFD3Axo/09GMEUibVIXMESlveOZRv3Z7Zr2/l2ZgRwItnegORsHI9Ec6 AieqDsFUrkWqovkAGFNiTcORetXqJpnwUk55mRHsoGXLoD3ciJDYFsJAjBaZ4aNs 5qUCdBWAMQGYSpT8w06veN/rCEtP/Pimwog== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdelkedgudeitdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpefhffehleejffegffeugefhkeektdffgfehjedvgeejtedtudehueffgffg feejheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:20:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:20:21 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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: -2.9 (--) On 19/04/2023 00:15, João Távora wrote: >> Aha, so the :echo thingy made it possible. Gotcha. > Right, which is also the reason it makes even_less_ sense to bring Eglot > 1.15 into Emacs 29_without_ ElDoc (I hope that plan is now completely off > the table). Eh, sure. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 08:05:17 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 12:05:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32936 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp6Yn-0004xp-5J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:05:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52354) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp6Yh-0004xX-N4 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:05:15 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pp6Ya-0003Bz-96; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:05:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=xTIirH59ma/nJ/XNXiwMfi57PiXMxQ0FbPrf5pvgS88=; b=AWb31KrpxomA8JsyWBrx xJfw5bMF5DovzZERnJzxz8Sf8ErDamEMK8IR3rW156VT0D7EaDuV/Cd9CO0EdK45MI2rnkiZnJVn/ KcsfwKX4NAbZuAwKYo2VkQ3+jcuhqpkuGpDMd0pIae7XUn5MmCBRLO02HncItpw4LbGHu3t2K/0CP Pgm+/JSZiBWhUlFJM/QF/BoF10wKLuLwWfRZQLTOwxrAdzbUg0Ojk7nkyezY0163kKMsDEq/iZckE icE2h9aVpU5Ii+h7PJTkvenLMNc2ZhfDL3E+nP4QfpXDa3QB4jpq7eUdjlQNLOdNPxPek+OllIEMR oqPtbPFvE4Tllw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pp6YZ-0000tn-HR; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:05:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:05:13 +0300 Message-Id: <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:20:21 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:20:21 +0300 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 19/04/2023 00:15, João Távora wrote: > >> Aha, so the :echo thingy made it possible. Gotcha. > > Right, which is also the reason it makes even_less_ sense to bring Eglot > > 1.15 into Emacs 29_without_ ElDoc (I hope that plan is now completely off > > the table). > > Eh, sure. It isn't my call in this case, but FWIW: I still have no idea why wouldn't we want Eglot 1.14 or 1.15 to be in Emacs 29.1. I didn't hear any serious argument against doing that; every reason that was raised was almost immediately explained away as not being a hard limitation. And mind you: Emacs 29.1 will not be released tomorrow or the day after. We still have at least several weeks till then, with at least one more pretest. So the decision whether to import a newer Eglot into the release branch doesn't have to be today. However, the argument against updating Eglot on the release branch, such as they were, are of some vaguely "fundamental" nature, so I'm not sure a few more weeks of time will change the decision. No one said something like "if Emacs 29.1 were to be released in NN weeks or more, it would be okay to update Eglot on the release branch." But then I already admitted to not understanding those reasons, so maybe I'm missing something here. So there you are. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 09:04:30 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 13:04:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33064 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp7U6-0006eI-0I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:04:30 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f45.google.com ([209.85.161.45]:36354) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp7U3-0006e5-8E for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:04:28 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f45.google.com with SMTP id h30-20020a4ae8de000000b005463ee651b8so1609760ooe.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:04:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681909461; x=1684501461; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=/0+26E73NWa+r7ZTU54y880lECsUftlidtaqVTRyv9E=; b=UV5o8OAJsqUKpaLC9q69rlBkF9mBGFYK/+S0mXCR3HiFbTy0GC3FsCxdBRlbKtZqB4 PZQoEyxSlXEvl2bYHuNVucwK/p3T0pfa2kmTjfhaTVG+mUDBO1Y5FiDnbOvZf+KP54Hp nQ6CKGWk5nZHlecG3EZqoL3b7dDDFjqLy9whfFeSBo9vqWQMT1tQ1X+4D98U1GEaZ+cd 6RAgcq8lBtVX/J63t30Lo4/6GQGyX3/3bj1FyCTabMDoP1/0C/M9hupJ1JUv/ZiYZ+GK 7xHqoqYfWbFk2NynlVQiMmGVOmpb8jLxucjO+aUdZyP+JayzyQ/bWjvUfsC5MjovAujF U3gg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681909461; x=1684501461; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/0+26E73NWa+r7ZTU54y880lECsUftlidtaqVTRyv9E=; b=EET3/C3+Mq/+FGt/BsUvOgwWngFXN375/0/6FdNeD8cW/EAydWONgQBQ4+Y61yBzXe KVb5AmlRENmdbqBkaacdMI53pB28s8wpzrcm1UFKGRRGrvzyHRQSAfVsKQXaE10O0wcT sQOZgFP1jsO1xi3XPFkVvPGmsIXtwYAlPFNCGUv6cXqXMDOzV/VxtpDZlOv2Ort4rrLg hLuMu0MgLMGBngd9cA+PcdXIy1uJgnG/FRhdd3zI7L7wRN1Ku5hWtSxLAtx8X1jA9ssb BDvoyNBafwbBBqM26JWM5j7bHOxtYQmaNRgB5c9qh+KQr3Y1EonIW5qTcyqoOmNoD4zT ek8A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eqcymG7mryeZCTKggA6xEFUsUwJdxWXJa8x1tW9bdLWc05qEAw 7Nw4v9mIUTEGXOMDhEfPO+itIcgWMYOUbi7vyMM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350asaCzZIdUVbu1Tbr9q0lw08IoXrDGVTrKRru2dSnw73reLzm4hUQgWjFQMSCH9UA8nEv+0o98afEIRFF/cEN8= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:9809:0:b0:537:f9d4:a44c with SMTP id y9-20020a4a9809000000b00537f9d4a44cmr8684727ooi.5.1681909461657; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:04:10 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 1:05=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:20:21 +0300 > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > > On 19/04/2023 00:15, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora wrote: > > >> Aha, so the :echo thingy made it possible. Gotcha. > > > Right, which is also the reason it makes even_less_ sense to bring E= glot > > > 1.15 into Emacs 29_without_ ElDoc (I hope that plan is now completel= y off > > > the table). > > > > Eh, sure. > > It isn't my call in this case, but FWIW: I still have no idea why > wouldn't we want Eglot 1.14 or 1.15 to be in Emacs 29.1. I didn't > hear any serious argument against doing that; every reason that was > raised was almost immediately explained away as not being a hard > limitation. > > And mind you: Emacs 29.1 will not be released tomorrow or the day > after. We still have at least several weeks till then, with at least > one more pretest. So the decision whether to import a newer Eglot > into the release branch doesn't have to be today. However, the > argument against updating Eglot on the release branch, such as they > were, are of some vaguely "fundamental" nature, so I'm not sure a few > more weeks of time will change the decision. No one said something > like "if Emacs 29.1 were to be released in NN weeks or more, it would > be okay to update Eglot on the release branch." But then I already > admitted to not understanding those reasons, so maybe I'm missing > something here. > > So there you are. Eli, do you want Eglot 1.14 (or 1.15, or 1.16 or whatever version is the latest Eglot release "several weeks" from now) to be in Emacs 29? >From your writings, I'm assuming you do. Let's call that version Eglot 1.1x with x > 14. If we did that, we would have two options: 1. Bundle Eglot 1.1x with Emacs 29 and all its up-to-date dependencies, so that, right at the moment of the Emacs 29 release, Eglot would function exactly the same on Emacs 28 + package-install. 2. Bundle a "Frankenglot" with Emacs 29 that has all the lisp/progmodes/eglot.el code of the future Eglot version, advertises itself as Eglot 1.1x, probably doesn't break, but does _not_ provide the same experience as Emacs 28 + package-install Both options are bad, IMO, but 2 is worse. The first reason that both options are bad is that you're discarding whatever value the pretest phase brings to the stability of Eglot's code. Eglot, being a part of Emacs the Emacs code base, benefits from the same testing all its code does. You're discarding that value, and I think it's bad, because the pretest is supposedly there for a good reason. A bug = in Eglot 1.1x will just escape us and there's no time to fix it. The second reason only applies to option 2. It would completely confuse users. A user running Emacs 28 would see a much better 1.1x than the 1.1x bundled in Emacs 29. Her configuration for Eglot 1.1x could simply break in 1.1x. Eglot 1.1x was never designed to be run in such a hampered environment. They are "fundamental" reasons indeed. Are they now less vague and more concrete? Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 09:35:51 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 13:35:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33089 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp7yQ-0001Md-M6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:35:51 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60976) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp7yK-0001ML-Og for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:35:48 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pp7yE-0005cj-BJ; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:35:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=D3U2CYlwXc8j+nWXpy2CV+kUc/S6pQBWIYkz8+KEhCw=; b=B4DG9S0Cwvb4+ugItL1u 7+/xDMKyYNSVEdTi57GVb9s9qOlWPBwZfOyAxYhs9Zcv3C9+MTPFwxRL29k/QVuaZrlpW+UqC2re0 1BnKDykotd/J5kwvwvWvKWAOFq7o5Hcu2InU+peoAQ7XeEh0VTq/uQXgpZRAYCfgdwjrOtcqdmDJy pFHxE6c9gexbuhnNZFA0iat/kLPu2hYdmzaRCkkJfBRee8+oY5THwD56S/gIZ7M84BulYH6/c4g7w KLGpdMuDPJJFy2EMsMBb5YrDEye62inSmx7OhenqZx8aPigqVoJh0rJkJKwJ8GNxK9sysFMAiBOcP YieXCj8iOmWvwA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pp7yC-0004H9-Vd; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:35:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 16:35:46 +0300 Message-Id: <834jpc805p.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:04:10 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:04:10 +0100 > Cc: Dmitry Gutov , rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > Eli, do you want Eglot 1.14 (or 1.15, or 1.16 or whatever version > is the latest Eglot release "several weeks" from now) to be in Emacs 29? What I want in Emacs 29.1 (and any future release of Emacs) is the latest version of Eglot that you, as Eglot developer, consider stable enough to recommend to users of a stable Emacs. Which version is that is your decision. But to make sense to me, the decision you make should be consistent: if a version X.Y of Eglot is "stable enough" for you to recommend that users of Emacs 29.n upgrade to it, then that version X.Y can be part of Emacs 29.n. (Of course, if you decided that X.Y is stable enough _after_ Emacs 29.n was released, then X.Y will be able to become part of Emacs only in Emacs 29.n+1 and later.) I say above "to make sense to me", and I mean that, and only that. That is, you _can_ decide that you don't agree with my definition of consistency, and therefore Eglot X.Y will be recommended to users of Emacs 29.n, but at the same time you don't want it to be in Emacs 29.n; such a decision will not "make sense to me", but we will still act according to your decision in this matter. I hope I clarified my position in this regard. And before you draw too far-fetched conclusions from the above: I'm saying this about Eglot, and only about Eglot. Similar decisions about other packages, and the conditions for including those other packages in a stable Emacs versions, could very well be different. > 1. Bundle Eglot 1.1x with Emacs 29 and all its up-to-date dependencies, so > that, right at the moment of the Emacs 29 release, Eglot would function > exactly the same on Emacs 28 + package-install. That is probably not acceptable, although I'd need to know exactly which versions of what other packages need to be imported into the emacs-29 branch, to give a definitive answer. > 2. Bundle a "Frankenglot" with Emacs 29 that has all the > lisp/progmodes/eglot.el code of the future Eglot version, advertises > itself as Eglot 1.1x, probably doesn't break, but does _not_ provide > the same experience as Emacs 28 + package-install > > Both options are bad, IMO, but 2 is worse. I don't see why option 2 would be bad, let alone worse. See below. > The first reason that both options are bad is that you're discarding > whatever value the pretest phase brings to the stability of Eglot's code. Eglot itself isn't my problem. My problem is the other packages that upgrading Eglot, per option 1 above, will require to update: those other packages usually affect much more than just Eglot, and therefore bringing their potentially less stable code into emacs-29 might break much more than just Eglot. > Eglot, being a part of Emacs the Emacs code base, benefits from the same > testing all its code does. You're discarding that value, and I think > it's bad, because the pretest is supposedly there for a good reason. A bug in > Eglot 1.1x will just escape us and there's no time to fix it. Please leave this consideration to me, it is exactly the kind of judgment call I make every several days when someone asks whether a particular change is OK for the release branch. And in the case of Eglot I already said that IMO we should include in Emacs 29.1 the latest stable version of Eglot, thus my decision about that was already made in favor of upgrading Eglot on emacs-29. But I won't insist if you are uncomfortable with that. > The second reason only applies to option 2. It would completely confuse > users. A user running Emacs 28 would see a much better 1.1x than > the 1.1x bundled in Emacs 29. No, users of Emacs 28 who installed the latest stable Eglot from ELPA should see almost the same version of Eglot as users of Emacs 29.1 if that will come with the same stable Eglot. Unless you intend to somehow degenerate important parts of Eglot in what you call "Frankenglot", whatever that means. My interpretation of option 2 is that we get a newer Eglot (1.14 or 1.15, whichever you decide is stable enough) with various minor fallbacks intended to work around the fact that dependency packages are not necessarily at their versions for which Eglot 1.14/1.15 was designed to work, if the versions of those dependencies in Emacs 29.1 are older. That is, 1.14/1.15 without the mandatory requirement o upgrade any other package already in Emacs. If that is not what you mean, then perhaps consider this as option 3, which is the one that makes the most sense to me, and if possible and agreed upon, will be accepted into emacs-29. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 10:04:52 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 14:04:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35485 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp8QV-0005LI-Qf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:04:52 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:62616) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pp8QT-0005L2-5H for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:04:49 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f47.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-187b70ab997so9826711fac.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:04:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681913082; x=1684505082; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=VulU9Fw3gQ1UC8kVdN8nOGBuhPmHQGdCwVnvF5uY2R0=; b=Lh8PYwofzxhqZXZhs+0jvPh8ldOlrpq8jaAnXi4IWjwmQ9LaP8wB/Ax5YsbHfQ8ls3 5RwGncCgNMOyxxMX6vU86rR/JmxwFNNCFbPqfpboYeklD/bRngX7Ef1gRYkvJyUwa6Vr cKsOGthLzOZ4XL6jhxdXXVUI2DnACtZPUdLc2tk6sstudslKz5JLMyoS7Cw49jhVd26b 0hB5DV15tjitK5R1KCS2ACBsE+W8q4e827/IsYfL1MxYugvbJuYzP/Am7OmX3RqV4XSL xrNmUdFob+0RgpyhJZ79FbnNF3x0nFJfc/QRS6e1NXY0QpI/as0RAKkbV+lPA0iIdT4n 12IQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681913082; x=1684505082; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VulU9Fw3gQ1UC8kVdN8nOGBuhPmHQGdCwVnvF5uY2R0=; b=e5RHW91z1uJzFw2cPpTBD/AC5PWbeF22nwKD1uGwdZT6AK8RxkY/LsFTdlfVDHGOXq ZZYA0U0DxC7rJicJogC+z4ZSHRvNKjspM9pdXaakefvyxrsaPnMTw1tGARh1hY7F9A7M E0n7Q3TUrqGj8l5c15tRwH1ET5NQHRHQlNJ2itkkT2vBKirhbfSZz39rxCxNUIwvFMDm hbpXK9JuvAdeULUPKLD9Utn/2EphBdGmMAFSYiwccnAgMVFIffHogzHsnhS7SqD/IxuU 0wUsmM450Ycs9UHsG/2prGV+I5PNgh/TITnYXHv4kz9x8cwHEWhy9zFqFpGULCK7SXWm 0Ysw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dzJny4duxSeOyEcF7aQ1NvdDzsAE1mSJULdC3s1IgHaCl8mheV fECRuarSLwQX6HgDWYZCMLSYPnlD9UW22QXqPDQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YR5K4JgzBbWSu2ZuPo7N+bHzeOfcbG3q4YXzGkiFnmzWflcZ8pPxlnbvflxtUc1dVaWu47CLP5ZdoDQmbyZeM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:b152:b0:188:1b8:33ee with SMTP id a18-20020a056870b15200b0018801b833eemr1456085oal.21.1681913082227; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:04:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <834jpc805p.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <834jpc805p.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:04:30 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 2:35=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > What I want in Emacs 29.1 (and any future release of Emacs) is the > latest version of Eglot that you, as Eglot developer, consider stable > enough to recommend to users of a stable Emacs. Which version is that > is your decision. But to make sense to me, the decision you make > should be consistent: if a version X.Y of Eglot is "stable enough" for > you to recommend that users of Emacs 29.n upgrade to it, then that > version X.Y can be part of Emacs 29.n. (Of course, if you decided > that X.Y is stable enough _after_ Emacs 29.n was released, then X.Y > will be able to become part of Emacs only in Emacs 29.n+1 and later.) OK. Then I will tell you that "stable enough", for, me means "as stable as possible", because I like things to be as stable as possible. And, to me (and I would think to most people), the most stable version of a program is the one which has seen the most testing. So, I see no reason to give Eglot a shorter pretest period than the rest of Emacs gets. Thus Eglot 1.12.29 it is. > I hope I clarified my position in this regard. OK, it seems you're giving the call to me. Then I hope I've also clarified my decision and the criteria I used in reaching it. > > 1. Bundle Eglot 1.1x with Emacs 29 and all its up-to-date dependencies,= so > > that, right at the moment of the Emacs 29 release, Eglot would function > > exactly the same on Emacs 28 + package-install. > > That is probably not acceptable, although I'd need to know exactly > which versions of what other packages need to be imported into the > emacs-29 branch, to give a definitive answer. I could teach you how to figure that out (it's very simple), but since I don't want this either, and you just gave the call to me, there's probably no point. > > 2. Bundle a "Frankenglot" with Emacs 29 that has all the > > lisp/progmodes/eglot.el code of the future Eglot version, advertises > > itself as Eglot 1.1x, probably doesn't break, but does _not_ provide > > the same experience as Emacs 28 + package-install > > > > Both options are bad, IMO, but 2 is worse. > > I don't see why option 2 would be bad, let alone worse. See below. > > > The first reason that both options are bad is that you're discarding > > whatever value the pretest phase brings to the stability of Eglot's cod= e. > > Eglot itself isn't my problem. My problem is the other packages that > upgrading Eglot, per option 1 above, will require to update: those > other packages usually affect much more than just Eglot, and therefore > bringing their potentially less stable code into emacs-29 might break > much more than just Eglot. Yes, as I said option 1 is bad. Option 2 is worse, but 1 is pretty bad too, partly for the reasons you state (yes you're totally right "it's much more than Eglot"). > > Eglot, being a part of Emacs the Emacs code base, benefits from the sam= e > > testing all its code does. You're discarding that value, and I think > > it's bad, because the pretest is supposedly there for a good reason. A = bug in > > Eglot 1.1x will just escape us and there's no time to fix it. > > Please leave this consideration to me, it is exactly the kind of > judgment call I make every several days when someone asks whether a > particular change is OK for the release branch. And in the case of > Eglot I already said that IMO we should include in Emacs 29.1 the > latest stable version of Eglot, thus my decision about that was > already made in favor of upgrading Eglot on emacs-29. But I won't > insist if you are uncomfortable with that. There is no one "stable". You yourself are talking about stability gradation. Eglot 1.12.29 is "stablest". Eglot 1.14 is "stable". Eglot in master has recently gone two days with a semi-serious live bug (now fixed) Let's call it "unstable" anyway. Before I release 1.15, I will try to make sure it is as stable as 1.14 (or more). By the way, the ElDoc change about the non-blinking is "safe for the release branch" IMHO. Just in case you didn't get my opinion on that part of ElDoc of which I am the author and the maintainer since 2018. > > The second reason only applies to option 2. It would completely confuse > > users. A user running Emacs 28 would see a much better 1.1x than > > the 1.1x bundled in Emacs 29. > > No, users of Emacs 28 who installed the latest stable Eglot from ELPA > should see almost the same version of Eglot as users of Emacs 29.1 if > that will come with the same stable Eglot. Unless you intend to > somehow degenerate important parts of Eglot in what you call > "Frankenglot", whatever that means. Frankenglot 1.1x is just Eglot without the resources that 1.1x would have in Emacs 28. Don't you understand? The "good" Eglot experience requires things that are not in lisp/progmodes/eglot.el. It requires, for example, :echo support in ElDoc's eldoc-documentation-functions so that echo areas aren't flooded by some LSP servers. eglot.el can function without it, but users would be surprised. They would ask: hey didn't you fix this echo area flooding, back in Eglot 1.14??? And I would have to explain: this is not really Eglot 1.1x, this is Frankenglot 1.1x: the content of the eglot.el file is the same but it's missing a lot of stuff. And then I wouldn't even know how to teach them to upgrade. In so many software packages I know outside of Emacs, bugs and features are fixed and added just by bumping a dependency. Surely you must have seen this, too. > My interpretation of option 2 is that we get a newer Eglot (1.14 or > 1.15, whichever you decide is stable enough) with various minor > fallbacks intended to work around the fact that dependency packages > are not necessarily at their versions for which Eglot 1.14/1.15 was > designed to work, if the versions of those dependencies in Emacs 29.1 > are older. Why put ourselves (mostly myself) through these chores?? Just so that two weeks later after whatever Emacs 29 is officially released a more recent, "stable" version is already available? And pay the price of discarding the value of the pretest period? Just because Eglot is now much harder to upgrade? Then just make it easy to upgrade: it's in your control. There there are 0 downsides, as far as I can tell. As far as anyone who has commented that patch can tell. I've seen 0 contestation of the patch I proposed before, which I've grown almost tired of linking to. That patch was engineered to answer precisely your objections to previous patches. It was engineered to make _you_ happy and make me happy, and make Eglot users happy. And you're ignoring it. That is, 1.14/1.15 without the mandatory requirement o > upgrade any other package already in Emacs. If that is not what you > mean, then perhaps consider this as option 3 No, you're just describing option 2, as far as I can see. But probably no "various minor fallbacks" would be needed, because I am careful with the interfaces. --=20 Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 11:48:15 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 15:48:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35585 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppA2Y-0008Gy-Kl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:48:14 -0400 Received: from wnew3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.17]:51309) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppA2U-0008G1-R1 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:48:12 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924B02B06736; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:48:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:48:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1681919284; x=1681922884; bh=IEYO0GsZjTBK4GbPOEcx1rnaGVgmAXJLacJ +Qoc0pLA=; b=DbevkrXu85IJYBoSyr6fp90nqEkA7OF3Hrs1z8jQfgU0pB82zgk GaxkvpCJ92QItaDdPT2xh84iI+yMS+1PzJ2hYOGaMGdjnrJXjGsuqcdFu5WcwuUn LJW/tGVSd4pcKMu+GMWBLn3sO0I8IG3qtBKH9GnHaGG0c/+xqN9VdoyGALbbRXyD kMuFA1+LlgolvMAgg1JJaXvXG1ltC/oo2MQGM9FcqAV5e9Bd6NEqDMWfsYgErHSl qsJe3gw03chmOUoJd0IaNKa1RxAt/WbPx8sqpYlemGTKAW2zVTDWTJhI7GpfuEDi j5TIF/Ay3RiaaN2vsEEE6m991WeqR50FANw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681919284; x=1681922884; bh=IEYO0GsZjTBK4GbPOEcx1rnaGVgmAXJLacJ +Qoc0pLA=; b=kG13j1UNPTwIwtx7AhkmKmasrPf55E8+fMgi2+K4kwUKVdY5peT frmAxwIBYGNEpelJrpqLwd+bAoEoiOmdcqdeCP4U21y8Y8XwT5pRmMP0nlGG3jVw z1X/bKBLGBdt2/pT1jVwk8yKnm6H1DiBl0BoUfv4iYNP6zrPlJ7Sh3dTKTiKeN8u Mb6+Pe1B8XM8EvSbF8uOntRcmaH+CSt7cU1wTPiE/gz/89OsUa8U4bHV+sNtGHbk i64X3ALhLmtgwl6d6LVbRnAC1aFfLORH52Q4uNRfNad0asKGBAOjJUiIFjQq519/ AtFahzDmkq12spmFUTbgCTH3yR/NLsoctyA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedttddgleegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:48:00 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 19/04/2023 15:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > It isn't my call in this case, but FWIW: I still have no idea why > wouldn't we want Eglot 1.14 or 1.15 to be in Emacs 29.1. I didn't > hear any serious argument against doing that; every reason that was > raised was almost immediately explained away as not being a hard > limitation. Okay, let me try to answer this: since the goal is (apparently) to have a stable version of Eglot in emacs-29, we don't know yet whether 1.14 or 1.15 is "stable". > And mind you: Emacs 29.1 will not be released tomorrow or the day > after. We still have at least several weeks till then, with at least > one more pretest. So the decision whether to import a newer Eglot > into the release branch doesn't have to be today. However, the > argument against updating Eglot on the release branch, such as they > were, are of some vaguely "fundamental" nature, so I'm not sure a few > more weeks of time will change the decision. No one said something > like "if Emacs 29.1 were to be released in NN weeks or more, it would > be okay to update Eglot on the release branch." But then I already > admitted to not understanding those reasons, so maybe I'm missing > something here. Let's imagine I was making this choice. I would include (or propose for inclusion) Eglot 1.x.y in Emacs 29 only N weeks after it has been tagged on master and thus published to ELPA, on the condition that no major bugs have been discovered in the meantime that required major reworks (because any bugfix would reset the timer to L weeks where L < N, but a major change would reset it to N weeks again). That would be the general guideline. Add to that the maintainer's best judgment, who would be able to reduce or extend these periods on case by case basis as well, according to the changes that went into every release. To answer the original question: N weeks still haven't passed (I guess) since 1.15 was tagged, so we don't quite know whether it's acceptable for emacs-29. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 12:02:07 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 16:02:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35621 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppAFz-0000OA-8m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:02:07 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53186) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppAFv-0000Nc-OE for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:02:05 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppAFo-0006la-Pu; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=iSz0d+PTTp9AEshTRckS1HZ1xzvYOwQAAyWpgSB4SQo=; b=QPi5yZ0XOKgJ5vFn1WGq kCPoOotXpZglx6DBaBEt9DS6Y4CQSekw8xpPyQC8skTlwMnkYkFi68xv9LzNKKkQ7FkKr7ctZabXU mR5zGcvWAJqdNPzUaJ/tFqZ3SzBZgAC2jZahi2Pb8A0ER3uMmOwtFrLyffmNJndq74Bd2kqmsooYh gy4IbvEZWhOostHM4mHWqi0URZzWSdjdoisv3uM9J3lcdG1D0hEti6sm2FfKOlRNTvhlDEOdtSMAc qlrPBlHFOmEw0Da7rRB31ndlW/S1c4B6QfaGmVkQTQ+W9YpcuOn8KONrCRsCkfU3BKYUF3GU2wvX9 X+1iDhZgKTxdLA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppAFn-0006PS-Uk; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:02:06 +0300 Message-Id: <831qkf97y9.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:04:30 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <834jpc805p.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:04:30 +0100 > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 2:35 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > My interpretation of option 2 is that we get a newer Eglot (1.14 or > > 1.15, whichever you decide is stable enough) with various minor > > fallbacks intended to work around the fact that dependency packages > > are not necessarily at their versions for which Eglot 1.14/1.15 was > > designed to work, if the versions of those dependencies in Emacs 29.1 > > are older. > > Why put ourselves (mostly myself) through these chores?? Because I thought we agreed that requiring newer versions of other packages where that could be avoided (note: "could be avoided", not "is nice to have") is a Good Thing, and is well worth these chores. But if you don't agree, fine; just one more disagreement between us. > Just so that two weeks later after whatever Emacs 29 is officially > released a more recent, "stable" version is already available? No, just so users of Emacs 29 could have a better Eglot without any complications. But again, have it your way. I said I won't argue with your decision in this matter. I just wanted you and everyone else to understand my position on this. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 12:10:31 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 16:10:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35627 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppAO7-0000aj-Bi for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:10:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56934) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppAO4-0000aN-88 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:10:30 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppANw-0001Pa-9M; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:10:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=mwpCtsMPA3E4FvY1ObQedqRvd2BTGlLQhZUtJXAO17w=; b=KJdO13kKXiBPf2v3F0BU 5vADUxD98GrdPVlpn71cPKzpooB3HA3yvxxt/seTDiwIgk1VOWybjuRvChmY2uI5F5sMpUEmYJg9Q 0tNptVQX9FGKezfPvSW9yZvpjy0XGIQQZFiIy90YCnQLKhUPs/g7aY/dn2Q/ljGFVA+bq5va0ZCty JLfw3rSfpAELRG9zDMbwGRYOxYu6Pv1c8AFYT6B/HniWdpB/gNhBhHHm0mk4DSyAMFE6OoRWPX8KJ rqkKULOJt4VQucAViv/kftVsHrIVUew+Q1w7d489J44Z7inz5cyWzcOPMSpJbp9tI9pl3Gn0LMuES n42B8174d2y0oA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppANv-0005Fw-FW; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:10:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:10:29 +0300 Message-Id: <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:48:00 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:48:00 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > And mind you: Emacs 29.1 will not be released tomorrow or the day > > after. We still have at least several weeks till then, with at least > > one more pretest. So the decision whether to import a newer Eglot > > into the release branch doesn't have to be today. However, the > > argument against updating Eglot on the release branch, such as they > > were, are of some vaguely "fundamental" nature, so I'm not sure a few > > more weeks of time will change the decision. No one said something > > like "if Emacs 29.1 were to be released in NN weeks or more, it would > > be okay to update Eglot on the release branch." But then I already > > admitted to not understanding those reasons, so maybe I'm missing > > something here. > > Let's imagine I was making this choice. > > I would include (or propose for inclusion) Eglot 1.x.y in Emacs 29 only > N weeks after it has been tagged on master and thus published to ELPA, > on the condition that no major bugs have been discovered in the meantime > that required major reworks (because any bugfix would reset the timer to > L weeks where L < N, but a major change would reset it to N weeks > again). That would be the general guideline. Add to that the > maintainer's best judgment, who would be able to reduce or extend these > periods on case by case basis as well, according to the changes that > went into every release. > > To answer the original question: N weeks still haven't passed (I guess) > since 1.15 was tagged, so we don't quite know whether it's acceptable > for emacs-29. That is fine with me, assuming N has some reasonable value. It means I could ask you again before the next pretest, and then again before RC, and perhaps you'd then agree to import a newer Eglot. But note that this is not what João is saying. He says 1.14 will not be in Emacs 29.1, period. No matter how long I will drag the pretest. He certainly doesn't want to invest the effort of making Eglot 1.14 less dependent on latest changes in other packages, so as to make sure we could drop Eglot 1.14 into Emacs 29 without risking any problems elsewhere. And that more or less seals the issue, effectively setting your N to infinity. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 12:18:15 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 16:18:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35636 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppAVX-0000n3-Qd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:18:15 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f50.google.com ([209.85.161.50]:34540) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppAVS-0000mV-4D for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:18:10 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f50.google.com with SMTP id w5-20020a4ae9e5000000b0054711c8ad6fso824070ooc.1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:18:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681921080; x=1684513080; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=v16pzp3QxrrLj1pU4PEB93Q5oyTxlKtMdMCysT1xU0s=; b=QCAXD3qjRiTBCYayPhbWOk/8YokdZy7VJ9zyzzchL2qt+Ra96TVRHjIYnEGnBjBNkO qQxZu4U3GfGao+CSE2pX9mfpb8jkMb64FCLa7swc0K5K9tlFKYMEz9tY0e/STcwNOf28 Sq1Hgkta5he6x/aGhEIJj33YnNuvLzfbaEgySC5F+JFUZug7PoIypm7qXpOfochSBUlD h639EcgRM3rLN/77sOup3vjl5gT8huXqRBR1qMZIgAW9e6e9bF/YRGvX/iKt69crjVa4 LZmPpuQcv8/9E6prW1HRLcjah8qbC2h2yNfrNt0V6xtfKXzT3dI0vhCIkvNWJPxv+XJz DhoQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681921080; x=1684513080; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=v16pzp3QxrrLj1pU4PEB93Q5oyTxlKtMdMCysT1xU0s=; b=dWT6C6JzzbW+25o8ODgIrGPUeVWrWoGdQsnbecj0pdk+9/+8jLnLlp16uIFE4NvNJU Zi9E7CD1j3FwjkPY1VkktoHdcdUKCE4AC5/f7uRFDvbYHvJQMdjOnG2RgfnnYlPcuSKF w5EZ+W6w2kW4VgGYj7c73mtKn5/Vh3FNumqjyPAraDOb5Fml1EYpfE8dEK86U6RYKLYW biGHtqeebUVvjJOpfj3Zw87aJTVm5TgTWmCXK5C7zK4YBogZbM2JM8tFAlrcGirsBk2A 66sp1mB5hcqRo9YOvx1D/T7cFgB3ja0nTpkjF7Zat8UhXEH7/Xt6/mwA9zC2qtE+VxRh vUqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cFWScNFg21ac3AQwZJstdZjuA2+P0H8hqn8aeKT8eWd4wGypAN a6pTtSGPJd3bwvyGz4QzRQCNlYSditmTNOdBp+U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Zfzj2kVlbjNMXdvW31hlOFVDgFuwijr03HpiGoDpdmA2aw3zmrPXoi+kv4yO/UG/gdB4WTYF27xLACZg/2vXw= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:334a:0:b0:541:fc88:3aac with SMTP id q71-20020a4a334a000000b00541fc883aacmr191950ooq.5.1681921080051; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <834jpc805p.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkf97y9.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <831qkf97y9.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:17:48 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:01=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:04:30 +0100 > > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 2:35=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wr= ote: > > > > > My interpretation of option 2 is that we get a newer Eglot (1.14 or > > > 1.15, whichever you decide is stable enough) with various minor > > > fallbacks intended to work around the fact that dependency packages > > > are not necessarily at their versions for which Eglot 1.14/1.15 was > > > designed to work, if the versions of those dependencies in Emacs 29.1 > > > are older. > > > > Why put ourselves (mostly myself) through these chores?? > > Because I thought we agreed that requiring newer versions of other > packages where that could be avoided (note: "could be avoided", not > "is nice to have") is a Good Thing, and is well worth these chores. > But if you don't agree, fine; just one more disagreement between us. I gave plenty of arguments (which you didn't contest) for why doing this is a very bad thing (in my opinion of course). If your utmost priorit= y is to not require newer versions of other packages, then 1.12.29 should be just fine! It will work without an internet connection. And it will be mu= ch more consistent and well tested than Frankenglot 1.1x, because it will go through the pretest period. > > Just so that two weeks later after whatever Emacs 29 is officially > > released a more recent, "stable" version is already available? > > No, just so users of Emacs 29 could have a better Eglot without any > complications. It wouldn't be better. It would be a different thing, a maintenance nightmare for one. What if the user then _did_ explicitly install of those dependencies? Installing a package and its dependencies isn't a complication, it's how it has worked for years. _You've_ decided it is a complication (and made it more complicated) for Eglot Emacs 29. But people have been doing it for years. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 12:23:51 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 16:23:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35640 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppAb0-0000vs-6L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:23:51 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f51.google.com ([209.85.161.51]:37880) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppAam-0000vQ-MN for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:23:48 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f51.google.com with SMTP id w22-20020a4ad036000000b00541e4028218so4278031oor.4 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681921411; x=1684513411; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=ewlUf+A6uz3x/iy/f+T1v7ZpPPAGlevn8Dxs7+DZKik=; b=C2NxpuXP0RifQEPG+tde2sSeem/YQW8NMg73hrz4FZQ9Jr4pZMAJPDvAkxyEJwPTHL vDDlAWK34sS7PPUxlNIFSlEVgvvDS1wxFBBnde32LiouD8dYjQcRg+JHsqqnX9xmlfa8 QsFo7yA5zbCE6Kno3ATg3QBEyeIkFBu6nTHmb4X9YJ1v0BAYIEW7jZigQk3XdX1twdnD 4CA06Civ1W+X0SLj3P4MHPmvhV25BSJ1iwXLxNQGV8aUJPEMw6IscHevfg11bA9yLX9n +977K2OZYItz9GT+L7i4935EsYzIYk+VLUQrncIfHY7Z3XwnvurWmClWtJdtPHEifcFt TEGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681921411; x=1684513411; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ewlUf+A6uz3x/iy/f+T1v7ZpPPAGlevn8Dxs7+DZKik=; b=WBAIYHWDlO3hDn++br5BSSLbvafUapqnAHjo4LFNHLLtLcdUdEvgrY3Fdxpb0NdAMB n7l1NQRhIBBY3km4Ya57YyEMAjk+0h143FQgpAMEoKO59loJEGeYuNgT29TH2LnhBd8D aJPjTx1YShOf2mBvKd5uasr/zpZu5SIMBy9qArw/md8eDezeTDZ0xscQUzl90ms4P4EY yBkHUccI7+rSDmjWtbdN1fxKwWZd6KSn21OzsiuN1v7xuRNPG307Yoy0XFgsCPhGHCjv f+riy8Dh9T/XWm9aKP2t+bMHZYqE50U4qmJ2iMLgErI9hNeqXKfCdos8RQiK2QqDr/bf n7Kw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eyBHvTCpZUkmKnHPNGUDrBB++bzQ5FSEnS9cvCPFk+LvJGiI5J vYn9exapkhAhNMBxrUqBoLjsJ+fdswwILq4Oxvg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YsQUESwIDGLlbsqXDBLq2mvN74T9DC7DXKsRA6vFQFQ6vnhndzUJY0kmx0TM668r2Gk8t7DtU33mpKwxh5ZMc= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:4952:0:b0:547:1c45:ba59 with SMTP id z79-20020a4a4952000000b005471c45ba59mr228890ooa.2.1681921410661; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:23:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:23:19 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:10=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > But note that this is not what Jo=C3=A3o is saying. He says 1.14 will no= t > be in Emacs 29.1, period. No matter how long I will drag the pretest. > He certainly doesn't want to invest the effort of making Eglot 1.14 > less dependent on latest changes in other packages, so as to make sure > we could drop Eglot 1.14 into Emacs 29 without risking any problems > elsewhere. And that more or less seals the issue, effectively setting > your N to infinity. This is extremely odd for me. Weren't you the one very, very sternly asking for almost _no_ changes to go into Elisp code of the Emacs 29 now that it is in pretest. And now you're liberally and casually suggesting way-over-last minute changes and work to go into that same version? This just doesn't make any sense to me. Can't you understand that other maintainers also value stability for their packages? It's certainly NOT about "not wanting to invest the effort". That effort would amount to forking Eglot in its feature set so that effort would be a disservice to everybody. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 12:50:09 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 16:50:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35688 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB0S-0001gU-Rj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:50:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39266) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB0Q-0001fr-7T for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:50:07 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB0K-0002v7-8X; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:50:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=aGJ51/ObvbUjOyNvfT8atcEH3a5Kiv+/Dy7zg7sgZm0=; b=gBTYsveDco45ODhH5tdK 4on6tfFg/Mqt44WC02KGKjKLSg37vfTBzCWcaaCsI3dVKsd7guQe1HUiFogKjYtSQTqqWuOwJdqJf ysD1befvdAKkQiBB7aJ0YnbjIUMrecpYz1plOcwCsMXh3kB79WE1s+6xRFE3yO2gbp6TE1uQNrANY uATFjkwyLb7RhUVwn9GFjhCVYhNp/AXr2BZBg3ocvCDcCtL8zY+7Z6gWLZ/d5STv5v3qWi3BM2gks 6YHxGY7pNgXFuBKrWqdILig8ygG9dKNhDlsUNj6wEGahhBJN0BbL1E68e2jzSnB9XFifzi4RxPdCz W22jauWcTh0gDQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppB0J-0006NW-Jh; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:49:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:50:10 +0300 Message-Id: <83wn277r5p.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:23:19 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:23:19 +0100 > Cc: Dmitry Gutov , rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:10 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > But note that this is not what João is saying. He says 1.14 will not > > be in Emacs 29.1, period. No matter how long I will drag the pretest. > > He certainly doesn't want to invest the effort of making Eglot 1.14 > > less dependent on latest changes in other packages, so as to make sure > > we could drop Eglot 1.14 into Emacs 29 without risking any problems > > elsewhere. And that more or less seals the issue, effectively setting > > your N to infinity. > > This is extremely odd for me. Weren't you the one very, very sternly > asking for almost _no_ changes to go into Elisp code of the Emacs 29 > now that it is in pretest. And now you're liberally and casually > suggesting way-over-last minute changes and work to go into that same > version? I'm talking only about Eglot, not in general. I believe I've stressed that point already. So what I said or did or asked to do regarding other packages or other places in Emacs is not necessarily relevant for this discussion. The decisions about these issues are always on a case by case basis, so you cannot compare different cases and expect them to yield the same decisions. > This just doesn't make any sense to me. Can't you understand that other > maintainers also value stability for their packages? Of course I can. But once again: if Eglot 1.14 is not stable enough, then why do we recommend users of Emacs 29 to update their bundled Eglot to v1.14? This is inconsistent: if 1.14 is not stable enough to be in Emacs 29, we should only recommend it for users of Emacs 30. I already explained this inconsistency more than once. Why do you keep bringing it up time and again? You might disagree, but why do you insist that I accept what I perceive as inconsistent logic? Just let it go and accept that we disagree about this. > It's certainly NOT about "not wanting to invest the effort". That effort > would amount to forking Eglot in its feature set so that effort would be > a disservice to everybody. No, it doesn't require any forks. It requires more cautious introduction of new features into Eglot on master. And yes, it's extra effort. But IMNSHO, users will benefit, so in my book it's worth it. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 13:23:18 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 17:23:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35728 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppBWY-0002cW-Et for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:23:18 -0400 Received: from wnew4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.18]:45219) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppBWW-0002cH-EC for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:23:16 -0400 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDB52B06751; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:23:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1681924989; x=1681928589; bh=dLs4yYoprswjXxzXHRK6fBBlQLtPCHDoAzI 1xuMT6vA=; b=xKtEo05Ii2hBbP0EIcshPX8NfALwIW14db1IrnnhaEgpzwLnvtp p4R6jFQkCzII+opxgPsOY0NfGcjMroqHR+MqRAhlGShVqk6mDo3DoQJbIJMC9wSE q/MQPW1uVtCBD49QTyTzansCfk3GadEcNQuj46hEkht/FNIC22hJHym6rldaI77b nQowyd/S5PixEhD0W3EcveTfn5zfJ9vEkgEODJoZF7yKInN+3NuzkHSkWfojrvlw m/I/psoSev7XboYZxxCY5jNhpXeHXhoVbmOiBi8YXcZCP04VYH2SHRv9Kq7wa3K7 Pk+U9INBWLUR1U2DZ30WSoL82rayH6EMyfQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681924989; x=1681928589; bh=dLs4yYoprswjXxzXHRK6fBBlQLtPCHDoAzI 1xuMT6vA=; b=W4rpGW8OY/ZAn4g9PH+0vY2Zv0ROmjqsIGouFJHyd0UNpHjpjSc NFEHAe1WcIypvDM4WDvTvUY83RfjNryVAvfFYxeFpe7QbHrcjv6f101Tj21FNRKw FYslNf1rYVB8WAXuK/5+kmhXSFfHxO6UKZ7JALwIGgvwh86jhsQulENbS5veFgsg q/Dngnk5aQX81XnAVUdK7zOFfzvo3focsVDBBQSt5lhE5uMCsYs6TkIMUSpDtUeh 2/iNGZq+c59Zac+OpzsBh1VfCEG2Z9gmyQAr60g45sNK3LdQju6hcLp9lacvbMeG vAalIRT+lYVgIzU3drG/T1LvNp0/1s4N8jw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedttddguddufecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpefhffehleejffegffeugefhkeektdffgfehjedvgeejtedtudehueffgffg feejheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <239207ca-d7c5-bb10-4865-d5c76d3251b3@gutov.dev> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 20:23:05 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 19/04/2023 19:10, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> To answer the original question: N weeks still haven't passed (I guess) >> since 1.15 was tagged, so we don't quite know whether it's acceptable >> for emacs-29. > That is fine with me, assuming N has some reasonable value. It means > I could ask you again before the next pretest, and then again before > RC, and perhaps you'd then agree to import a newer Eglot. More or less. > But note that this is not what João is saying. He says 1.14 will not > be in Emacs 29.1, period. No matter how long I will drag the pretest. > He certainly doesn't want to invest the effort of making Eglot 1.14 > less dependent on latest changes in other packages, so as to make sure > we could drop Eglot 1.14 into Emacs 29 without risking any problems > elsewhere. And that more or less seals the issue, effectively setting > your N to infinity. I think you're simply talking past each other, and will essentially agree on that "N weeks" thing outside of this discussion. But also note that you added a complication: avoid bumping the required dependencies. If the backport is not performed as-is and needs additional changes (with extra shims, stubbed new features, etc, instead of simply using new features from the latest eldoc.el), then you are not just asking whether the maintainer thinks the new version is good and stable, but also whether they are willing to expend extra effort altering it and maintaining diverging versions of code. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 13:27:26 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 17:27:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35746 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppBaY-0002iv-Ls for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:27:26 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f51.google.com ([209.85.160.51]:62827) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppBaX-0002id-Vo for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:27:26 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-18777914805so198938fac.1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:27:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681925240; x=1684517240; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=73ZtIKucndUTVjqv3HW0ZsYnozU9Q1MMA+CCJFr8SEY=; b=ZRwMLwDTvE89YQ/OykiLtInw0IjFcGmID/ncKCQ5d9/p9tTdsQ0RoNM9K/UTmhkVIE ScSxbYrMTDgUWsQpYLkyUhKmmS1uR42tPENCtuz1PHip/1pkiz2bVfPF+2oyzsXdkYmA I9Zu47HdEj8l3CA9ZIT/QVRK0sz8Wa61j5UywN0O/qPl5xrATlNEd1VOEsnAAKvVclip wnkP+G1xmgrIA2PmSCuY+j3+bfgclbGXIG+YFLXxPwxC4/b8QLDyNR0CYERvkLkeSnm9 CFvOc3dx0acVODnTE6RF+ge4YsbClErUYOn0oMN8+foc3/2DnunasoA58vGEBnBqdAJq 8FPA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681925240; x=1684517240; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=73ZtIKucndUTVjqv3HW0ZsYnozU9Q1MMA+CCJFr8SEY=; b=UYQ8H8w4ugcxXmB2AE0czvsvqeOJocL7mSycnXZemf5wVmdYwXx9mpCetjhPFzqdJz 5mtoxL9wTtS1WfZqB6UZGc2CBWMy5P0Tug8A9ANiX/S52Vht3bgNpycoLFh1kGYfu/89 scgyB5jPpXlc/Av/Iwfju+qS/wJ36U/rB2sdNjkiDAH81CFNW6iFX6Jd/i0qEl1t5gCn peqgNYtfZXqnLNpSJCRp2yJkXL1hNRMB5dHV40uLoPpDfziQm+gLwI3aaVBxaAxPuQB/ 3PKP5IHAaztyNvYFACWqsunZcDDB26+ErG9BVP+A8zR+TEV42peqI4KxyS7SLrEHj1aL hy+w== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ceXILtFczOvmbURRR2xUHpJxMMe7cVqfFWPdWibnptCm5K6P9v vTlksUor3biEGedGafnlzcMaGibxrNRJbJLgjek= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZKSz/R2AqnCPctnqSJzymdFzSH+mjaGEfQAPwEYFJwQ+jVxlUw8hJRCMmR3elDhASN98sEnKWTSBEUBNOwLTc= X-Received: by 2002:aca:df09:0:b0:38c:174:5ff6 with SMTP id w9-20020acadf09000000b0038c01745ff6mr2090607oig.2.1681925240306; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:27:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn277r5p.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83wn277r5p.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:27:08 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:50=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > This just doesn't make any sense to me. Can't you understand that othe= r > > maintainers also value stability for their packages? > > Of course I can. But once again: if Eglot 1.14 is not stable enough, Stable enough for whom, or for what? Stability is quantity in a spectrum. I think Emacs releases should come with the most well tested code. No program is perfect. Eglot 1.14 is stable, but it's not _as_ stable as Eglo= t 1.12 because the latter has seen more testing? So different users and different use cases will accept different things. > > It's certainly NOT about "not wanting to invest the effort". That effo= rt > > would amount to forking Eglot in its feature set so that effort would b= e > > a disservice to everybody. > > No, it doesn't require any forks. It requires more cautious > introduction of new features into Eglot on master. And yes, it's > extra effort. But IMNSHO, users will benefit, so in my book it's > worth it. AFAICT you suggest a different eglot.el in Emacs 29 which has the same features as eglot.el in Emacs master, but without needing the dependencies that the master version can enjoy. That's a fork if I've ever seen one. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 13:53:17 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 17:53:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35796 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppBzZ-0003VG-Gq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:53:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41526) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppBzV-0003V0-BA for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:53:15 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppBzO-0007WX-Ed; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:53:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=ykKk0PS7AeQgQ7d+KHSPLx3h6r5MaxEUSIsGPOYAkek=; b=LPmKjLLL2GASx8wCeCW2 YjJ4KLQVFAr/1asv+8n55SnsCnkSNE2fIHLvXSuGwXutO4OZyQn3wCFJmEZELOSYxwRadAPPsmAcA ep3mwCW7an3gBFEGQabqyCRgbmwPlzJScytSZ8oz0EueAcXyLuhSe5gmTnDUKKpbH6QvSojAQezf8 oCqo1dvIqXqzNcvx60VMKtvZcGER82MlYFxO0fiyqPsb/fBO7wmNjR9Bx/5jJlrF1C6xRW6r40zYu gW8fmgYG8qpSl265bt3LnL7SaWJ1nApNrvfrQsY3ngT8TsZFx9bia2QsxWFQ9KlXJy0s5/dhdQlAj OK4+VYjRbWEDTQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppBzN-0000v2-Vt; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:53:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 20:53:16 +0300 Message-Id: <83ttxb7o8j.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <239207ca-d7c5-bb10-4865-d5c76d3251b3@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 20:23:05 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> <239207ca-d7c5-bb10-4865-d5c76d3251b3@gutov.dev> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 20:23:05 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > But note that this is not what João is saying. He says 1.14 will not > > be in Emacs 29.1, period. No matter how long I will drag the pretest. > > He certainly doesn't want to invest the effort of making Eglot 1.14 > > less dependent on latest changes in other packages, so as to make sure > > we could drop Eglot 1.14 into Emacs 29 without risking any problems > > elsewhere. And that more or less seals the issue, effectively setting > > your N to infinity. > > I think you're simply talking past each other, and will essentially > agree on that "N weeks" thing outside of this discussion. I wish. > But also note that you added a complication: avoid bumping the required > dependencies. If the backport is not performed as-is and needs > additional changes (with extra shims, stubbed new features, etc, instead > of simply using new features from the latest eldoc.el), then you are not > just asking whether the maintainer thinks the new version is good and > stable, but also whether they are willing to expend extra effort > altering it and maintaining diverging versions of code. Yes, noted. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 14:00:00 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 18:00:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35801 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppC63-0003in-HP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:59:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55212) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppC62-0003ic-BB for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:59:58 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppC5w-0003Cw-6P; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:59:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=RzQx0OZQDltiM5zS8xEd+mm9nzz7BrFj0rkh0UcCvKA=; b=MrKRxNc5sPG3cK1ktXYG SsTaWLMnJLRY6MmO1VuAxTgcJHetN840pD0KCNdKXODCikq8TXOltjR0QIGhGbwDMTPMCF+++EJ7U 4ybaBULZQdgHsjn9RQDK4peb8xSrIoroJuFYj+yD+BPyAdHX9WgKPCF/bSTPeaPuOzynZBaSEzHiX OztvVbTFnGPtaVcQlfCGMcySYJZ0vJz02Fjx/qnIDyvTBrkbXoZaAs2/jd4059QgvgXfJukwldquF 9l0a8Tm0KVvkR8+Lv4xHlEak8831a7YUo4S9QpNWR+oQEBGYo6p2Uk5KksiBbRWkqVw4vdu9CX30+ xjKTkP710Nia9A==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppC5v-0002EF-D2; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:59:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:00:02 +0300 Message-Id: <83sfcv7nx9.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:27:08 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn277r5p.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:27:08 +0100 > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:50 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > This just doesn't make any sense to me. Can't you understand that other > > > maintainers also value stability for their packages? > > > > Of course I can. But once again: if Eglot 1.14 is not stable enough, > > Stable enough for whom, or for what? Stability is quantity in a spectrum. Stable for us. We are not talking about absolutes here, we are talking about relative stability. I'm saying that if some package is stable enough to be used with Emacs version X.Y, it is by definition also stable enough to be included in Emacs version X.Y. The relative stability levels of these two cases must be the same, or else we are inconsistent in our own judgment of stability. > I think Emacs releases should come with the most well tested code. No > program is perfect. Eglot 1.14 is stable, but it's not _as_ stable as Eglot > 1.12 because the latter has seen more testing? Then how come we tell users of this same Emacs 29 to update to Eglot 1.14 without too much thought? And you even insist on making that automatic when packages are updated at startup. Won't that destabilize their Emacs? > > > It's certainly NOT about "not wanting to invest the effort". That effort > > > would amount to forking Eglot in its feature set so that effort would be > > > a disservice to everybody. > > > > No, it doesn't require any forks. It requires more cautious > > introduction of new features into Eglot on master. And yes, it's > > extra effort. But IMNSHO, users will benefit, so in my book it's > > worth it. > > AFAICT you suggest a different eglot.el in Emacs 29 which has the > same features as eglot.el in Emacs master, but without needing > the dependencies that the master version can enjoy. That's a > fork if I've ever seen one. No, I suggest that you make changes on master so that these problems are avoided in the first place. Changes in a core package on the Emacs master branch should be done while keeping in mind that this same version of a package will be on ELPA and users of older Emacsen will install that newer version. So the newer version on master should avoid making changes which would mandate newer versions of other packages, by providing the necessary compatibility fallbacks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 14:27:32 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 18:27:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35818 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppCWh-0004Oe-Uu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:27:32 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f44.google.com ([209.85.161.44]:54537) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppCWe-0004OQ-Qo for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:27:30 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f44.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5424b046c6bso5585eaf.1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:27:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681928843; x=1684520843; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=cIXUUwATuiCpLaM+YoFI+NBgGQdQPMux0YBMVxX0lkQ=; b=pt0eVCgHmqPwP2omjtPzOJoaSWQqDkAQPKZjq2gmzUz3NYlkoWFpshKlHYKWflypXY BWE1mZr8Yyb6M5glghKIeKJnYUjGavF9rIexFwSH9K4HzZ9BdxUOB3WPrZzGDjgvC3Fs oxrngJgZbIwMyEXBYcq74QAm5oNPtvIKd3sDv5G9ZRlkZQqiVWSGq77itXPf0dJKmOgw ET1uZR+0GA9tC96MRIbG7mAie3Xa98Z8cU4SVh3IM6VlSU1WpUiWTFeNcefS1+peMUvh Hkfab3tDwELBLTksWIng91hZPWO7FMRkZBI8AZY5IdL5WvAfjJo4LXQ85Jsdqqz8NYaN jhFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681928843; x=1684520843; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cIXUUwATuiCpLaM+YoFI+NBgGQdQPMux0YBMVxX0lkQ=; b=kAHkKLOjkImzzZ0iLeC4N++a7SOE1GSvYx8ERB5d9NWOM3sClnSBaj7Ti55juOpj/z /UtG0uOQ1KPcFivjUr0hKHM5DlSGjgMqh0L9rMptZQhI7FISONWRr2D8dhQa5Jl5EX03 rYwNb7kT1BLzSDPeuVMXC7I+jD3jkHCAwg+osldCeA7hnFs0w1aGhnVoCHy4vJvxoS0M CpN67CwxVaxvzCuybH/U3f6/7BO3d0uLhEI0IrV3y+4FRsOur3MFLbxw6Lr6zM8Do7pe dT7hISD99mDnsvcOiz/buDdTiE3+kvmVpvhTAXK+tYaWRsrHL/sJwSiRnpC4b6TIXPCH vhIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dBRxB4rpp20AbUYgVfb75K//a/nth8ct2PInj598CunboOv72y JwrDfQr3b6VC4AwgOZpLZzcpCEExrfsAM6iJy+I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bLUDqZTtjldN8FLeRB1mMswgVoF86yC9Y+eFXj8iFbsi5QuPq1SYRwqhE9bim7xlhQJ8VxwSy6jplz6dFBZqs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:b35:b0:378:2b0c:493f with SMTP id t21-20020a0568080b3500b003782b0c493fmr3094966oij.19.1681928842891; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:27:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn277r5p.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfcv7nx9.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83sfcv7nx9.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:27:11 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 6:59=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora > > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:27:08 +0100 > > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:50=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wr= ote: > > > > > > This just doesn't make any sense to me. Can't you understand that = other > > > > maintainers also value stability for their packages? > > > > > > Of course I can. But once again: if Eglot 1.14 is not stable enough, > > > > Stable enough for whom, or for what? Stability is quantity in a spectr= um. > > Stable for us. We are not talking about absolutes here, we are > talking about relative stability. I'm saying that if some package is > stable enough to be used with Emacs version X.Y, it is by definition > also stable enough to be included in Emacs version X.Y. The relative > stability levels of these two cases must be the same, or else we are > inconsistent in our own judgment of stability. > > > I think Emacs releases should come with the most well tested code. No > > program is perfect. Eglot 1.14 is stable, but it's not _as_ stable as = Eglot > > 1.12 because the latter has seen more testing? > > Then how come we tell users of this same Emacs 29 to update to Eglot > 1.14 without too much thought? And you even insist on making that > automatic when packages are updated at startup. Won't that > destabilize their Emacs? I don't dictate to users how much to think :-) I just assume that they've been thinking about it in Emacs 28, and they are happy with this amount of thinking, else they would be complaining about stability, and they aren't. Maybe some users are holding on to Emacs 26.3 + Eglot 1.0 for dear life, who knows? It's very simple to me. To summarize and to hopefully answer the question that you repeatedly put before me, this is my recommendation to users: "Dear user, Emacs 29 will come with the most stable version I can offer, and I can tell you, prospective user, that it has been through as much of the Emacs 29 pretest period as possible. If you, prospective user, are interested in the features listed in etc/EGLOT-NEWS, you may try upgrading to the latest version (I hope it will be easy, good luck!) In the unlikely event that things go sour for your particular LSP server and use case, you have my deepest apologies, and you should revert back to the version bundled with Emacs 29. Thank you, Your maintainer" The second part of this recommendation is what I've always recommended. I've never had to phrase it like this, but this has always been my recommendation. > No, I suggest that you make changes on master so that these problems > are avoided in the first place. Changes in a core package on the > Emacs master branch should be done while keeping in mind that this > same version of a package will be on ELPA and users of older Emacsen > will install that newer version. So the newer version on master > should avoid making changes which would mandate newer versions of > other packages, by providing the necessary compatibility fallbacks. So, if I want to do a feature on master that depends on some new infrastructure on package X that appeared on master (say Xref's upcoming support for "find any type of thing declaration/macro/etc"), I have to do no less than duplicate that new infrastructure in Eglot.el and do a runtime check. That's... not good, to say the least. But noted. Now I (think I) understand what you suggest. AFAICT basically suggesting all Package-Requires are eliminated, to get rid of package.el dependency system. You should argue for that in emacs-devel explicitly so, I think, because that will probably elicit some interesting reactions from :core package developers. "Package-Requires" is used liberally now AFAIK It's the most basic underpinning of Eglot's design philosophy, if there such a thing. That's why Eglot is called "minimal". It's not minimal in functionality! It's minimal in size and complexity because it reuses code and keeps itself simple. And if I may be a bit less humble about it, I've gotten a few compliments about it. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 19 14:48:11 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2023 18:48:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35846 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppCqh-0004wy-AR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:48:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55394) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppCqf-0004wA-39 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:48:10 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppCqV-0008Gz-VI; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:48:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=YMpnpPp9kdEqUz+ojBVvSxwGf9IfYFDuoOSrVtQQa9g=; b=ZZBmIizn2CAovCtaTVCA hg1gQ5QHb6YaY03vm805lxv5lZA1uc66Ap8Hm0YsV/wK1WKVJfDvzoBKiT+P6bS3lHVK5b8ahNxBG J2G8SzsWlBmA4/6oI2P4Npmdq8yuV/JOgQuHoPq8/lJGJLN3CxlThXnkZwjy8B6OtQydgmnesYo7Q hwGQRagTiMa5Om/+wdhwUAXDJKA3r5/AdM/A3pSKtqK4btAaWa6Wxe3ou9S/t/IlRfzCwVA8JMoRp oJaAyCWYQjRBoTvJRYDmjR09+nCSRJLRkX7edduhsu0wjRYK1KPj1xMN9bgGP4BqpJrHkDv94SMS3 4bW8+TMpABMiTA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppCqU-0000GS-8A; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:47:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:48:09 +0300 Message-Id: <83jzy77lp2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:27:11 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <06d29dbd-0b33-8698-bcb8-c89368612f54@gutov.dev> <252e77fb-9657-a5be-2e86-234f7b05d162@gutov.dev> <83edog84cm.fsf@gnu.org> <8e73ca15-00a3-2082-2dd4-94585a3aa64b@gutov.dev> <83zg737szu.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn277r5p.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfcv7nx9.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:27:11 +0100 > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, rpluim@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 6:59 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > No, I suggest that you make changes on master so that these problems > > are avoided in the first place. Changes in a core package on the > > Emacs master branch should be done while keeping in mind that this > > same version of a package will be on ELPA and users of older Emacsen > > will install that newer version. So the newer version on master > > should avoid making changes which would mandate newer versions of > > other packages, by providing the necessary compatibility fallbacks. > > So, if I want to do a feature on master that depends on some > new infrastructure on package X that appeared on master (say Xref's > upcoming support for "find any type of thing declaration/macro/etc"), > I have to do no less than duplicate that new infrastructure in Eglot.el > and do a runtime check. Not necessarily duplicate. That is only one alternative, and not the best one, IMO. Other alternatives could be: . decide that users who use this new version of Eglot without that new version of Xref will not have this new Eglot feature . provide a less functional and simpler replacement for that Xref feature . find a way of providing the new Eglot feature without relying on Xref, but via some alternative solution Whether each one of the above could be relevant and reasonable depends on what exactly are those Eglot and Xref features. I'm sure you don't need the above, you know that better than I do. It's stuff we do in Emacs every day, and core packages consider these factors since we began having core packages. The question is just how far to go in that direction. I'm trying to make a point that going as far as is practical will allow us to bundle at least some packages in newer versions, which in the end will benefit users. > AFAICT basically suggesting all Package-Requires are eliminated, > to get rid of package.el dependency system. No! Not "all dependencies eliminated", that's impractical. I'm talking only about dependencies on core packages, and I'm asking to avoid mandatory updates to newer versions. The dependencies should still exist, but the minimum supported version of each dependency should ideally barely change, or at least change as infrequently as possible. > You should argue for that in emacs-devel explicitly so That's what I did. I'm not to bl;ame that you keep responding here when I asked a day ago to respond to the discussion I started on emacs-devel. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 06:02:08 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 10:02:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36633 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppR79-0004sq-Pz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 06:02:08 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43552) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppR77-0004sM-Nv for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 06:02:06 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppR72-0002Y1-4m; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 06:02:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=NE/XuU4UX8roolnnVl1HFyx7mS/owLp7+wAG2KMSS2c=; b=pvZ851GB/nft 5TjUFhlwnTE3nwdmZInFzVwqFe2cwKhreJ9TvwGSQKHcwvFICk3Oc3kARgK+knP1K+e2IWf94UsNd CyHlBQABAS+ElEZ+i8dMBB3fzNaUKSHKZIjFWFOGkYzms93jxFVLooT+HUQaaBDSujn3vTy9FmD5h m4n6Rh/tQ0CvQhq40BxHmmFvU/ZtYRItshXYM19Z0/NevHzLPV/2h/Dgj7i4HnfoFBNE1MhubP6cZ ZLM3kiMHvtdOrBHkY6iVnoLTzjOcNtgRVH6y3qqlGcougwoFm0cs6Qz+sWL8iI4ousci6WOYk1bIb cXREboZcG3JqUVxYlBPGsg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppR71-0007eW-Kr; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 06:01:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 13:02:11 +0300 Message-Id: <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 20 Apr 2023 01:06:10 +0300) Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 01:06:10 +0300 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , arne_bab@web.de, jporterbugs@gmail.com, > emacs-devel > From: Dmitry Gutov > > OK then, I think have to re-evaluate my position on this. Previously, I > guess, I made some hasty conclusions from how the discussion went on > without refreshing the exact details about package.el and use-package > (the latter I never knew to begin with). Apologies. > > Eli, let me know if we should take this back to the bug tracker instead. I've moved this back to the bug-tracker. Please post all further replies about this particular issue, i.e. updating of built-in packages with package.el, to this bug and not to emacs-devel. > So I would suggest to focus on functions that don't work as intended. > Namely: > > - Add a user option for the list of builtin packages which would be > upgraded automatically by 'package-menu-mark-upgrades' and 'M-x > package-upgrade-all' (nee package-update-all). Maybe make it nil by > default, or maybe add 'eglot' to it. I don't have a strong opinion. > > - Fix 'M-x package-upgrade' (nee package-update) to suggest Eglot as one > of the options and actually perform the upgrade. That shouldn't require > changes to 'package-install' because, as we already know, the user can > already install a newer version of Eglot using the 'list-packages' menu > (and picking the exact version manually). That execution path is going > to go through 'package-install' as well, so it must be suitable already. > > - Revert 580d8278c5f48 because it creates odd semantics (upgrading > certain packages that are already installed but not others) and it > doesn't solve the issue with (use-package 'eglot :ensure t) anyway. We > could keep it, but seems like a half-measure that didn't make anyone > happy anyway. OTOH, it could minimize the rewrites of CI scripts. I don't think we are ready to make any new decisions in this matter. I think we don't even have a comprehensive and detailed picture of the problems with updating/upgrading built-in packages in Emacs 29. People are still discovering facts and subtleties of various package.el commands and features, and are still arguing what exactly happens in this or that scenario. So before we discuss solutions, we need a full and detailed description of the problems to solve. If someone can do the footwork of collecting this information and posting it here, please do, and TIA. I will say up front that, given what I already read here and in the related thread on emacs-devel, there seem to be too many inconsistencies and dark corners in this, in particular when built-in packages are involved. We will probably be unable to solve them in time for Emacs 29.1, certainly not all of them. So don't raise your expectations too high. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 06:30:06 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 10:30:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36677 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppRYE-0005nV-9y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 06:30:06 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:56675) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppRY8-0005mQ-O2 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 06:30:04 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1878f1ebf46so441673fac.1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 03:30:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681986595; x=1684578595; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=EodxqdncUR39/H03jo61YMNBb4O4yHZwpXrsMEc85JI=; b=A8my+6SbsQAxUYyb/VFms556/0Fw+Xvsrtk5ILbUQaPrLWFXuOQqw9o12JzsHhlmnm L4M3W6caO/StzDzNeRVpQq/Tj+/dNm5cJENEvwrlXz6QwgLpso3TgmvkmH6rX0KCB+dp 2aWxPHc1HCgUg0hr9s/hzxD5npf+2K68xekWXXgwAp4ASJTZ/zajdNWU7vGRn9/CIJBu PbnOD8qZe658OqKod2lWbWH0xxsUda5W70oDljjcbWeVMg27isQvfZmIsgcxkyPDjFD0 kU2pg8/NyBrbRfbAch3ILUnuZ71jVcEZyAb14c4u1HAIe66MHjXOedJr9v2BRN4nbTQx BOPA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681986595; x=1684578595; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EodxqdncUR39/H03jo61YMNBb4O4yHZwpXrsMEc85JI=; b=AL/MbLL+1bBAhoDCHK4IJYuG+OZeRA6ZrP2U9PrcGn/m+sW84dMZtZPoFX7rpRadYP AqKU+u3hq+AI+v45nW00+AIvKXSNcGAK3j+JVDVvdI97Nq8CkXOR3a2SOc/573QhltzO 4zx8yIRSBFpOceaRnVvn3IWQ/dMDpYGqiVRTqPArAs2pt664v0LwK42jtUfcDIQV2EQb 3OKqGGrdHXtuEj/topGnuSwEGsVd1oxnwO9ZaZIf7yZw5Q3RaQFyJjjf1jNE0kfmRffJ MRjXRzxq2Bob+BFP54wudURAKUeIsyB29ektjcMestihb/8FCXaLJNGvw5TvcR5N2/zv 3aNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fG+Fv/xw41qeptKWSsWDGSerq+DSb/ieXQV4Dfwhuj60QF3Qyr +59nQwWFt1cgs3klXfdVaiLtTUqBDI1aAOXmDrE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aeUHUUzdAbIUt0ynBco6T/kcVj+vg4bT0JAPMCuNw6VTsVfllkbxhrBrw/ZJ5RWxqxiNXBTC9wklLgI8iWX38= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:b383:b0:177:dfdb:63 with SMTP id w3-20020a056870b38300b00177dfdb0063mr655393oap.44.1681986594716; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 03:29:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:31:52 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:02=E2=80=AFAM Eli Zaretskii wrote= : > I will say up front that, given what I already read here and in the > related thread on emacs-devel, there seem to be too many > inconsistencies and dark corners in this, in particular when built-in > packages are involved. We will probably be unable to solve them in > time for Emacs 29.1, certainly not all of them. So don't raise your > expectations too high. Yes, I don't have these expectations. Please in the meantime, allow me add to eglot.el: (defun eglot-update () "Update Eglot regardless of package.el policy." (interactive) (unless package-archive-contents (package-refresh-contents)) (package-install (cadr (assoc 'eglot package-archive-contents)) This will allow at least Eglot users to weather the storm until Emacs 30. I know you forbade this in the past, but now that more "facts and subtleties" have come to light, maybe you can reconsider? I'll readily deprecate this function when a solution has been found for the next Emacs. It doesn't really affect anyone but Eglot users and these are, in your own admission, already negatively affected anyway, so what is there to lose? Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 07:49:36 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 11:49:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36741 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppSn9-00025P-U6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:49:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46400) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppSn7-00025B-NT for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:49:34 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppSn2-0005xJ-2f; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:49:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=0RSTV4n+flbvFINt0u7r7FgOJpQR0CaH91gEa8/0pbM=; b=JAnxhYqm6GNoKdH3p17t 7Vonf4U+PTASAzndrJ5KjuMYCm+RHjicquZUNnw/zC8F42R1mCa+jHiX/Xx6d91roqC05isyRiWxt sVCAyMHCZ2kdMLl/jK0WyuHmIkuOoJkiTd683qhuzPRQFguM4unKGZ0niwuIALqDRkvR7yBXuYMFb NeP/35yYZLD+g1CF0fHsi+SFwEkXillj32iOqCI5ZArXcJW2DRore+KO72UpUTWGuPyemX0TrONVP kKckOJfAQYQ45M7Z3cRmNrdHSy04BugdgjFG6Pmb4YNLO7v95N0UiLoF9wd1lC/hg9hdSmKGr23xA QY6nNQhNFg7BoA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppSn1-0001wL-NG; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:49:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:49:41 +0300 Message-Id: <83h6ta6aei.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:31:52 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:31:52 +0100 > Cc: Dmitry Gutov , jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:02 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Please in the meantime, allow me add to eglot.el: > > (defun eglot-update () "Update Eglot regardless of package.el policy." > (interactive) > (unless package-archive-contents (package-refresh-contents)) > (package-install (cadr (assoc 'eglot package-archive-contents)) > > This will allow at least Eglot users to weather the storm until Emacs > 30. I know you forbade this in the past, but now that more "facts and > subtleties" have come to light, maybe you can reconsider? I'll readily > deprecate this function when a solution has been found for the next > Emacs. It doesn't really affect anyone but Eglot users and these > are, in your own admission, already negatively affected anyway, so > what is there to lose? I didn't forbid it. I said I'd prefer not to have it in Emacs, and I still do. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 07:53:54 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 11:53:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36749 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppSrK-0002GG-4p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:53:54 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f43.google.com ([209.85.160.43]:45142) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppSrI-0002G0-3s for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:53:52 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-187ec6a5504so582888fac.2 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 04:53:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681991626; x=1684583626; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=7Ih1sbgMRNu1m+kxBkUte7E1GGR7gitBjjZXL+RYI+s=; b=Dhwnbfff9f00tUeSB1y5CaTCFAOD3b91VfBCDc1mUIdrXKifmUQ4n2ujfITkckqM5m 8+zgEZfYuN6oQ5gaC2SLRz/n11/Ewr+omgGVpw38ZB2PFR+4RH5O/R8XUPjT5/Be+frU DMptMQ814ZcalCTCRwIBPOdntARBzjiDg2QrpzIaCGWfJl1134wJPRHylg4IoIbUor+v 57X2DkuCFcVt20JGVges6EvhrpUEOGwMgKvr/NiL9DT34I9DP/P6N13SADKjMO7RSZrP 2tNnLfEV7uuZABywhPtGw0vEceH8OsIaUusqyTAmQ83ulRuwbj8DElSbiC8O2EUghLRg /HZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681991626; x=1684583626; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7Ih1sbgMRNu1m+kxBkUte7E1GGR7gitBjjZXL+RYI+s=; b=Gd2mHGtW84U1hK/sSuVjRjMDejWI+S9bt2/nc0+5z+4Z9O8iGcjOir1TJN9Vzq3Gwh P2bdz3L6LoJZA6AKtRCL8YNu6S33GCLMaYNmOSWt8qZ/q2wd7LwTFFIhSXO78+8HRbMg cxnAXgv/AmBEaWJWWnuBxyD8Jozvyb4OzOROOW+lXYa7lun/kvSHp6JHP37tbUxwmXO9 dfAgFrVnMzy0JQqduA0BChcPhvfuOqL38yxF1uZuswNm0A+SHBxXDfCct1YAtFSOBUjC DmP339Td7oPwo2es4PPY1S0vOMQvo9eHS1E/q6mNiHJ0Kiq44Ij8EYJlYH3yiVYchK4n X/rg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cJVMflyG78FykX8Amzoatnq21uPneU8l3pPiELm9BJezr0MUPq YeLhMwgKoWzYt+IWWf4cVfDTjulSXkIKAjq4r1o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Z+teAUrqcg06aGrdvIpbkLsHR8zlQ2D/RqlvMuaCxXAlD1Ik/o80bKCOSH5BQUjBo+ZE6zsK7GnhMwhEMWJpc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:4709:b0:18b:18b5:907f with SMTP id b9-20020a056870470900b0018b18b5907fmr895267oaq.2.1681991626331; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 04:53:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6ta6aei.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83h6ta6aei.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:53:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 12:49=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote= : > > Please in the meantime, allow me add to eglot.el: > > > > (defun eglot-update () "Update Eglot regardless of package.el policy.= " > > (interactive) > > (unless package-archive-contents (package-refresh-contents)) > > (package-install (cadr (assoc 'eglot package-archive-contents)) > > > > This will allow at least Eglot users to weather the storm until Emacs > > 30. I know you forbade this in the past, but now that more "facts and > > subtleties" have come to light, maybe you can reconsider? I'll readily > > deprecate this function when a solution has been found for the next > > Emacs. It doesn't really affect anyone but Eglot users and these > > are, in your own admission, already negatively affected anyway, so > > what is there to lose? > > I didn't forbid it. I said I'd prefer not to have it in Emacs, and I > still do. OK. Thanks for clarifying. I would _also_ prefer not to. And if a good solution is found for Emacs 29, I will take it out or just deprecate it. But given this situation, I'm just going to add it. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 08:14:43 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 12:14:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36766 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppTBT-0002rL-7w for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:14:43 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52560) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppTBR-0002r6-7i for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:14:42 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppTBK-0004jh-SJ; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:14:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=306OgxVWGpVnZmT4txnAm26kyJRZbjHLfNEDohtGqTE=; b=E0z1qsRXRVJhZ8MFvlFb PwkeoEFunuKQAAmTwm1hMNseqRdyodPqtWXRVsioDQza6yyKx3cH2X2LWqe3EvsGF6K6RS7eSeqTN PLv5CaJV/8w1QC9GrxTbhHbNIWlCtkdrkruL+SH6PRMW9Y8nSmB74PQXztaHcBdAEDn8Wc5dOwaNH 3SnnE+SO6Cdv7D3zdq9LskhA6asPeYfeJ1hs1524OIMOnwF6AMnCJJ6uEvcHgeVfjDz7T4eNVrknW xOkC0kHcyl7oxaxmT9ICjY/2aTHZ7cIWe1LS9lCVL/9wWaxWX4BVG36wfMvBgE3ytiKIMblmECG7G Duj2yDVL9ahOag==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppTBI-0001EV-9y; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:14:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:14:42 +0300 Message-Id: <83fs8u698t.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:53:35 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6ta6aei.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:53:35 +0100 > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 12:49 PM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > I didn't forbid it. I said I'd prefer not to have it in Emacs, and I > > still do. > > > OK. Thanks for clarifying. I would _also_ prefer not to. And > if a good solution is found for Emacs 29, I will take it out or just > deprecate it. But given this situation, I'm just going to > add it. Sigh... From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 09:39:35 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 13:39:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36846 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppUVa-0007YW-V7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:39:35 -0400 Received: from wnew2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.27]:36379) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppUVZ-0007YH-0x for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:39:33 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E892B06836; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:39:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1681997964; x=1682001564; bh=xSOpXv7o5Eadl9WcySUwhTN8LAMCo5eswVK xOi1gsj8=; b=D/eu/vAMhIwfhOLkCjSmM4hbDA6JgZAxULmvHo29Ciz0dsNEPyA Y+fGqKZ0tUwPZ2uYKAMnRtYbCx0Hy2JK/KyskU1NfjAahJhbyYxGVhMSAsomB9Ik sup+sCHQNuuDRPvmSssvQWYwMOqHmzTNfLUXdjXYCU5HLfWT3SwOYl2+hA6MR2j+ SwdZZD+yT4xVcXFXltI+85r3ndG8tMmzMUzK8AUvAZ8uTb79sc/cOa7HHDi81GXU UWPdbKkmr4ZAvWdQWcsCY39WrIZ6rL7LPGqW4uZcCG141jDQkZRgF2IKmkGa+Jyf cgrTDh6rjWNRo1O2rVjVRhvlhLm9E9MMWzg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1681997964; x=1682001564; bh=xSOpXv7o5Eadl9WcySUwhTN8LAMCo5eswVK xOi1gsj8=; b=c6bb2UkRd3U+fMuKuSIJxjbNYZKzp/IQA4TzTebusNO362iYnLv NX4uM9Cn02jpCPB8fjZU/sJzKRA7tZOF1rMPExJmYzhUlKE+8Xr/C80RV6ztWI0g J3lU01QpUPRM3N7LNcqP4DaPE1p5TRyKM6Q41Zkq7hNqV1NVmrY3hg/STUNeSgCo /jjA/w2K38+cZX/wGPdkFzY82zgHfujOGewqtozwwo0tYtRnNim2YD+UMg4OeScU ++ZPD3AJ0bwZ4fylfgcxmgbtlNNnUz9C0GqMAjASYC7q0lqhSZa4ybD5Prap83KG pZW8CPKRtM5aNekOKuHmt2OW0wKgsFg+96Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtvddgieeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:39:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:39:20 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 20/04/2023 13:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 01:06:10 +0300 >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , arne_bab@web.de, jporterbugs@gmail.com, >> emacs-devel >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >> OK then, I think have to re-evaluate my position on this. Previously, I >> guess, I made some hasty conclusions from how the discussion went on >> without refreshing the exact details about package.el and use-package >> (the latter I never knew to begin with). Apologies. >> >> Eli, let me know if we should take this back to the bug tracker instead. > > I've moved this back to the bug-tracker. Please post all further > replies about this particular issue, i.e. updating of built-in > packages with package.el, to this bug and not to emacs-devel. Noted. >> So I would suggest to focus on functions that don't work as intended. >> Namely: >> >> - Add a user option for the list of builtin packages which would be >> upgraded automatically by 'package-menu-mark-upgrades' and 'M-x >> package-upgrade-all' (nee package-update-all). Maybe make it nil by >> default, or maybe add 'eglot' to it. I don't have a strong opinion. >> >> - Fix 'M-x package-upgrade' (nee package-update) to suggest Eglot as one >> of the options and actually perform the upgrade. That shouldn't require >> changes to 'package-install' because, as we already know, the user can >> already install a newer version of Eglot using the 'list-packages' menu >> (and picking the exact version manually). That execution path is going >> to go through 'package-install' as well, so it must be suitable already. >> >> - Revert 580d8278c5f48 because it creates odd semantics (upgrading >> certain packages that are already installed but not others) and it >> doesn't solve the issue with (use-package 'eglot :ensure t) anyway. We >> could keep it, but seems like a half-measure that didn't make anyone >> happy anyway. OTOH, it could minimize the rewrites of CI scripts. > > I don't think we are ready to make any new decisions in this matter. > I think we don't even have a comprehensive and detailed picture of the > problems with updating/upgrading built-in packages in Emacs 29. > People are still discovering facts and subtleties of various > package.el commands and features, and are still arguing what exactly > happens in this or that scenario. True. > So before we discuss solutions, we need a full and detailed > description of the problems to solve. If someone can do the footwork > of collecting this information and posting it here, please do, and > TIA. I think I have made a fair attempt at this, though. Here's an update: - package-upgrade (nee package-update) doesn't upgrade builtin packages that never been upgraded before. It's a bug. Hopefully not too hard to fix. - package-menu-mark-upgrades and package-update-all don't upgrade them either. That's not necessarily a bug, but a problem nevertheless. A new user option could help. - Fixing package-update should also obviate the need for eglot-update. Though perhaps the latter could still be useful as a single entry point to recommend to both users of Emacs 28 and 29+. - The current fix (commit 580d8278c5f48) is not comprehensive WRT to Joao's scenario because use-package-ensure-elpa short-circuits when it find that the package is installed ('package-installed-p' returns t). So (use-package eglot :ensure t) does not upgrade Eglot even when package-install-upgrade-built-in is t. - package-install-upgrade-built-in is not nuanced: if we suggest the users to set it to t, that can result in making _all_ builtin packages upgradable with 'package-install'. Whereas I think we originally only wanted that for Eglot and maybe for use-package. For this and other minor reasons I would suggest reverting 580d8278c5f48. But I suppose we could also try to make it more granular (e.g. turn the boolean option into a list). I'm not sure it's a good direction overall, however. - According to Jim P., package pinning doesn't work for builtin packages either. Which could be a decent solution as well, e.g. putting something like this in the docs: (use-package eglot :ensure t :pin gnu) if the users want the Eglot version from ELPA -- and this form might even be compatible with Emacs 28. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to fix package pinning, however. I haven't spent as much time on this bug as some others here, though, so corrections and additions are welcome. > I will say up front that, given what I already read here and in the > related thread on emacs-devel, there seem to be too many > inconsistencies and dark corners in this, in particular when built-in > packages are involved. We will probably be unable to solve them in > time for Emacs 29.1, certainly not all of them. So don't raise your > expectations too high. The reasons for me to be hopeful are: - The functions are propose to fix are "leaves": those that are supposed to be used interactively, without (many) known callers in-tree. E.g. fixing package-update-all shouldn't affect some other part of Emacs as much as changing package-install could. - I imagine the diffs will be rather short. I haven't tried to take a stab at this yet, though, and if somebody wants to take the initiative, they're very welcome. The reasons for me to be less hopeful: - We seem to be unable to come to any agreement here. :-D Joao's approval for the above list would go a long way. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 09:56:23 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 13:56:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38426 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppUlr-00008U-Ea for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:56:23 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f179.google.com ([209.85.167.179]:53704) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppUlp-00008N-8X for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:56:21 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f179.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-38e0a003abdso446350b6e.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 06:56:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681998975; x=1684590975; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Tj24JHCP+VJXO2vRffGYcuxjVdowG8JAXEyz6wWCkU0=; b=XsVEUdZFJJrGXucMJtYrfYS1e+h4fr5ILRq5inUeZP93ykzACo7BAzyfCmHAO3llEZ Nd4nzP6YoJE+MP7aPsRDo/tDLoJzeYZdPDWerW8m373tX14zZoOWbmHPJXLcNRCLb49Y T2gzUSaV9jV19/WwhKsbjNMsGwaGp8N3iS89VN3qyci54HErzsfV3/5y2sGyURbK1TWS PRVHzSfs7z1t3y6tXftWyefNeGunnYphB58JqJ8F19VfYG5KgvProTcCOlhX1cu7uG6S aGFEX3neFY6NRJRa0uNH3oaXM6LDWv12BwimPbEstpT+/vveK6QGYzUlbQHHesjgP9b5 FT8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681998975; x=1684590975; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Tj24JHCP+VJXO2vRffGYcuxjVdowG8JAXEyz6wWCkU0=; b=QcAaeXGb1NAML3p9dAv04nhg64ZMNa6qUfYcUWv76h15GZdK75Xc/WCirP4PAbZFo0 zCqLecjazpX9jLz4zo1yXoo/jEKJeyAelW7GaU5D6zqd7AO1mgbk6b17m8rT04GnlZBD IysFZH4BydI78fwQu9dpV85LOxRU2pMiDAXwYEpLGfFXTSoURik4H/lidVJqKTzjAfCh 7s97ak9at+S+z6WwQGTFDcMRyCVhkvkCDBc9jyEiCBxL/Jdpjx6R6aptQFcmnW6flxah e90TPPEBeLbmiAlE4puI3vkR4tL7ftkr1Kl//maAFbHzyzYmmvmJULam1uLF1P6DwJKc MA2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9d2+bSUj0DFC0KhdCIQE4EuTNf94QaOpc4UqLIic5tA+NesSiBS QmfbScxlaMe4DByAOomTsWMh9301fTR4IFTF+uE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZvGdkefcCWobpIpMwXdi4wAfyPWW7jJxwVTvZLyo/kF119fDAyJBO+9cLD35Bbu2cjE+59oQOuX7szZwpF/Js= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:f03:b0:38d:ef77:d720 with SMTP id m3-20020a0568080f0300b0038def77d720mr1012101oiw.52.1681998975311; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 06:56:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:56:04 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:39=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov wro= te: > The reasons for me to be less hopeful: > > - We seem to be unable to come to any agreement here. :-D > > Joao's approval for the above list would go a long way. First of all, thank you Dmitry for making such an extensive and detailed summary of the simualtion. It's really impressive. What you say about a fixed package-update obviating the need for eglot-update is totally true. In fact I proposed a fixed package-update much much earlier in this thread. If you manage to do that, then I'm more than happy to remove eglot-update. What more approval do you want? :-) I mean, I've resigned myself to a bad situation already (but if you can make package-install DTRT, I'm of course even happier). So package-update or eglot-update -- anything that I can put on the README . Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 10:25:19 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 14:25:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38459 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVDq-0000sn-UA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:25:19 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:61595) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVDp-0000sV-SB for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:25:18 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1879e28ab04so738211fac.2 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:25:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682000712; x=1684592712; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=I6E5Ry9FspKqioLaTKneeTC7nvMk84ByO2FnUhpGE+4=; b=rr4oz13WJ6ABUd37Nf2JHk9DvyB/Wem9QYS5NlLCHEkD5ro9TnPCxsCjIw3txRUsNA wky1JKPttHjeQUxR1FE52nw9hK0yYP/F/lfx2JmMcSGC5YWK8QnYG5Hd7IOUMkz3weOP 3vMgKNWuqOOiucQ+XNeP+Qdj3lbG30I7z/V+V9sJu/A2plFlP2v0KzigqSSq10mHeIT9 OE/q1YsObdy5GP05r78iek8P7x+LWD4+aCKPqCmBgaIo7u4jtet/0D23YNKhmGSUkXR4 0neLLiwzxM6eye0oMF7tkdiiIl5WS65SKMgVCe44oEzSAWfvEMAgqskR8ddty5UqTClK 4Ezg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682000712; x=1684592712; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=I6E5Ry9FspKqioLaTKneeTC7nvMk84ByO2FnUhpGE+4=; b=aRWnGtl63QBmkNP7rz1xWGoRGjGrNfUyQPH/olwQonC3kvNRpHQ/R8GcAnvcN5Vgts lAVyBCBrGm+SYaeg6ffFB5NqgoL2W7PV0Doia/F1XumNhPu5z3cHFZy2zFuS9dv4MjGw +s8nvitmkPNcN4chhMhuEUsSggGZIsvNnC3uv2rfWYBrEeAnSK8GqFNIPdknyfkRWv+F JaOUNlz8gPe0dYswLvLdj1J17zk0kUFsaCjl/FxcLZbvjslCGqWU5LVITdXMG+EUw+LE srQZTfw172I6Qk0ooacNqO7Yj8cI/CnMnhtNSjJ1/GIIZ1Vg/u3CEDLEr9CEqeks22hY amUA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fKQtDzjPIEOzmfBy+sXE88FjaQv1j2PKGxYr0VOfl/3ogakNNP lJsOkjOtKfk+NmFF8qSRTo7ZZI1elmmE0KasdOg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZYMx7O2iDJ/amKbfNvR8VmKcdAgKPTWCcn3NXI+jN2Ab51gS4oZ6sDJ0zxsZcCEjMBy5I8SXyrjc9bDIFlppo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:ec90:b0:187:e05e:a4f0 with SMTP id eo16-20020a056870ec9000b00187e05ea4f0mr1419021oab.26.1682000712033; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:25:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:25:00 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:56=E2=80=AFPM Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:39=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov w= rote: > > > The reasons for me to be less hopeful: > > > > - We seem to be unable to come to any agreement here. :-D > > > > Joao's approval for the above list would go a long way. > > First of all, thank you Dmitry for making such an extensive > and detailed summary of the simualtion. It's really > impressive. > > What you say about a fixed package-update obviating the need > for eglot-update is totally true. In fact I proposed a fixed > package-update much much earlier in this thread. If you > manage to do that, then I'm more than happy to remove > eglot-update. Whoops, sorry, made a thinko. package-update _doesn't_ really obviate the need for eglot-update, because it won't be callable in Emacs 26/27/28, and eglot-update will. ...unless package.el itself becomes a :core package and self-updates through ELPA, which I think is being proposed around here somewhere. Could happen in master (and leave Emacs's 29 version untouched). So for the moment eglot-update is my best out. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 10:25:53 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 14:25:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38464 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVEO-0000tc-9Q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:25:52 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49732) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVEM-0000tN-1E for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:25:50 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVEA-0007Kq-JQ; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:25:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=KZ0MYvwk7s3o0p7tgfeaHG8lP5TGudwKMPKRHUQMYP8=; b=oaWshfN0lZtWC5S/ozV5 e9BqDNZYjzLlpa3x7V5oE1ijXq/yrKGlc4pZ6pWwaI0110kahiJVJUoSu8cg69xfbtuAOy5g//JnC r9O2SpW9c0x/boBiQe9c3YE0ytWyRNi3+unXntOzpmx0rm33hoT0phjpdpN6SKUJ41gfRZh91cBeG xurX3MJL8vxltwu48+YGRmGkciqHNNM2RRaBtQQB8tCWqvtaw7iKLZ213eAghFR3sTpvPcez/nyR4 3um2BE+NdYbBqbPa/Xy47LqnEgzWDdVuhFk4exhNhTsSnPwG8Qytozq9VvmIDi4E+1wKgjZi2Gzn0 BTuEn7OEXP3tlg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVE7-0003wI-Q7; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:25:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:25:49 +0300 Message-Id: <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:39:20 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:39:20 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > So before we discuss solutions, we need a full and detailed > > description of the problems to solve. If someone can do the footwork > > of collecting this information and posting it here, please do, and > > TIA. > > I think I have made a fair attempt at this, though. Here's an update: Thanks. What I miss in this description is something a bit higher-level: the list of all the ways/commands/methods people use to install and upgrade the packages. We must have this list before our eyes to make sure we review all the behaviors related to these activities, if we want them all to eventually behave consistently. E.g., you don't mention any commands invoked from the package menu. > - package-upgrade (nee package-update) doesn't upgrade builtin packages > that never been upgraded before. It's a bug. Hopefully not too hard to fix. I'm okay with adding the same prefix argument to package-upgrade, which would then allow upgrading a built-in package. IOW, a change similar to what we did in package-install -- provided that the change is safe enough to go into Emacs 29. But note that AFAIU there's a relatively easy workaround for this: install the later version of the package manually, just once. > - package-menu-mark-upgrades and package-update-all don't upgrade them > either. That's not necessarily a bug, but a problem nevertheless. A new > user option could help. A very relevant question is: can this wait till Emacs 30? > - The current fix (commit 580d8278c5f48) is not comprehensive WRT to > Joao's scenario because use-package-ensure-elpa short-circuits when it > find that the package is installed ('package-installed-p' returns t). So > (use-package eglot :ensure t) does not upgrade Eglot even when > package-install-upgrade-built-in is t. I don't think (use-package eglot :ensure t) should automatically upgrade built-in packages. We could make it do that if package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil -- again, if such a change could be safe enough. If not, then the same workaround as for package-upgrade would do here, I suppose? > - package-install-upgrade-built-in is not nuanced: if we suggest the > users to set it to t, that can result in making _all_ builtin packages > upgradable with 'package-install'. It should be set to t only by users who indeed want all built-in packages to be updated. That's why the default is nil. > Whereas I think we originally only wanted that for Eglot and maybe > for use-package. "We" never did want that. João did, for obvious reasons, but that was never my intent. The issue is indeed more general: what should package-install and package.el in general do with built-in packages for which a newer version is on ELPA? We don't yet know the answer to that, and no hope of obtaining one before Emacs 29.1 is released (barring any calamities). > For this and other minor reasons I would suggest reverting > 580d8278c5f48. Not going to happen, not unless someone comes up with a better solution that is much better and still safe enough. Personally, I don't believe such a solution exists, since we don't really know the answer to the above question. > But I suppose we could also try to make it more granular (e.g. turn > the boolean option into a list). I'm not sure it's a good direction > overall, however. I don't think we should go in this direction, precisely because we don't know it's a good one. > - According to Jim P., package pinning doesn't work for builtin packages > either. Which could be a decent solution as well, e.g. putting something > like this in the docs: (use-package eglot :ensure t :pin gnu) if the > users want the Eglot version from ELPA -- and this form might even be > compatible with Emacs 28. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to fix > package pinning, however. As long as this is optional behavior (and AFAIU it is), I won't object, but again, provided that the addition of this will not touch any other code in unsafe ways. > The reasons for me to be hopeful are: > > - The functions are propose to fix are "leaves": those that are supposed > to be used interactively, without (many) known callers in-tree. E.g. > fixing package-update-all shouldn't affect some other part of Emacs as > much as changing package-install could. Experience until now in this thread indicates otherwise: almost every suggested change touched low-level code with many callers. It isn't an accident that arriving at what was finally installed took so many iterations for such a simple change. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 10:30:38 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 14:30:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38471 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVJ0-00012J-Es for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:30:38 -0400 Received: from wnew2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.27]:38641) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVIt-00011w-QV for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:30:38 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC52B2B0681C; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:30:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682001024; x=1682004624; bh=1RBcfBVKFKTAX0xq4VLbuZ/ZxWhEmT+O1KW JMzvjjOg=; b=gwl0Ll9P/MKU+C/wXzuvA1m9X2cdp3lpjIvCOB5inm+Bkxpfsb8 ehV5nJz+Rblwu1xMKs/LUeW9Quj1JhgbDOIrr8E1g/pbiVz/+ekLK3fCyzbe/FYU ee0Ek/7ugmm0vf6YnQfcH06uLQ4QJo8NvhHquDEyGtAF4efCtZ2ib2CtuC1XKtMe xzenKFgSXwnP/S7QSV1wcU1Xsv+XGj/n8o1btFZIUgaYpmdhfPnM4QM/2l+ijnQV Xa2QAl7kkTRMJsGKQPNsS5uAi94cVlciVg1c4j/lkqeTum+OgBxfPFHhGkpA+i1R WkKBSyN6DuoKdjVTGkmG4qVosHgaVrVQCcw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682001024; x=1682004624; bh=1RBcfBVKFKTAX0xq4VLbuZ/ZxWhEmT+O1KW JMzvjjOg=; b=fGYhpjnoaGaD5rBTPcRyLxtwngG7GVT58PrnY/E2eHfWKDt2Lr3 zfSw5th53NUuxTdPShrTUD/S9tGHDKC8X1+4QyrbtpfMBSGe70EPFr1CmqdhN/Wg ZPDLfb0kelZYPZO3ubdUdXiSGgg+nLxmxrM7QX8LF+8hr1CInGy+6RcLNqnqo4/A kk+UzUTnOIY2AlgO9TwroUohsIp9Vp1cd9z4j5ki9MO/nzmZZZXd4Y9lAik+XxCD 2m45z1mANYD7p099XuovF6B3UXuPakRG7FekktPJBfUeuDeOp7MBtiWQ64d400Pr iFOJD5BzNH1h1fcbqS1yRRGDc3iVgDUwlew== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtvddgjeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:30:20 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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: -2.9 (--) On 20/04/2023 16:56, João Távora wrote: > First of all, thank you Dmitry for making such an extensive > and detailed summary of the simualtion. It's really > impressive. > > What you say about a fixed package-update obviating the need > for eglot-update is totally true. In fact I proposed a fixed > package-update much much earlier in this thread. If you > manage to do that, then I'm more than happy to remove > eglot-update. > > What more approval do you want? 😄 An explicit approval always helps anyway. Thanks! From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 10:31:57 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 14:31:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38476 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVKH-00014T-1l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:31:57 -0400 Received: from wnew3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.17]:47715) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVKF-00014F-2i for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:31:56 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E433B2B066AD; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:31:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:31:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682001108; x=1682004708; bh=MboYyVxyNDu1R1ABBaiI1JYq757DCxd66ag HRFkVtg8=; b=YxL+x18BAjMn/cACVA2cpjNPmHCFKBBgS1I6RAzFuvJGZa5NCP6 DYFEPU3/EMZwAYvkVluFO6trOgMBg+zufGL6ym1veL6OpYW1LQt/K0S3pBcy81Q6 kTgYp4Ur+NenpMdSuEf2g3KUWIGndYlKGf29DubPr3ivLvfuAxCI1q3X7GNvnj+d Pu+HBsNtDZZ6M5rIJZFRpsigUtYHWu6dEJcqkw/y6mHW/R1Csq+86vtOMZnT0ntP BPmQodSr1dSS3ajHV+fS2Azs31airYFCu+80sw+cMrSbwetvESXeqQSdLbu0OVKc fKanXtUUhRZiR4I7OIbGvHJk4k82GeaIU0A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682001108; x=1682004708; bh=MboYyVxyNDu1R1ABBaiI1JYq757DCxd66ag HRFkVtg8=; b=WGu5hrVFdEA3aXYWCw4MnnZrtZkBsSEvEDL83W/M1hPs8VU8Rtc GLo/GJQRNDIICMDLocW5y8FdQeYKkjgfDU+P2F7lCzgSIcGih34I+vtlnH2cm2sz 4rpb171AUgAf6Hpr7n5DUR0wklAQ/d0QwM60QApJRgPVsj9fNG5HMmtEhyU/mPQU UAFkYZ9VpGV/wthdYAlSwcFiFPSxqoNDMz5ciiiR0G8nCmc1HVYFQNIXdqkxmdLh DklJdbq+v/kiSGSMuhjoOOvq7NLWbBCdJpC5bOY5sZ4zDqaHwFwuMT1zerJvLrFe 30uS6LsyGa9unoVMDm8DnAubbpDTwWV1vCA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtvddgjeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50a2198d-ed89-59b1-e4d1-efa672a1713f@gutov.dev> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:31:44 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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: -2.9 (--) On 20/04/2023 17:25, João Távora wrote: > Whoops, sorry, made a thinko. package-update_doesn't_ really > obviate the need for eglot-update, because it won't be callable > in Emacs 26/27/28, and eglot-update will. > > ...unless package.el itself becomes a :core package and > self-updates through ELPA, which I think is being proposed > around here somewhere. Could happen in master (and leave > Emacs's 29 version untouched). > > So for the moment eglot-update is my best out. We could add it and then make a tentative plan (with a TODO comment) to remove it as soon as a version of Emacs with package-upgrade that supports upgrading builtins becomes the older supported version. That would be in line with our general policy of developing :core packages anyway. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 10:41:08 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 14:41:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38489 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVT9-0001IT-Oq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:41:08 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f50.google.com ([209.85.161.50]:47597) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVT8-0001Hs-MI for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:41:07 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f50.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5425d39bc27so303558eaf.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:41:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682001660; x=1684593660; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=pxi9IpG6aZlS2ea7f9KvFXXsLjtjIJw6RVyK1MK+FEo=; b=WHZcSTlCsNSF7URoYcr+oclUgl4HB+qoORu8khsO5z6ashbRIt4LAiH4OMZqFEiHRT UYvNBeG/GjRIxkvxuyigxfjsrzZ6mHQq9O6PcfN3CVv2dhbu2DlmK0ZrQy7F5JbHNijP Bxh52WjphNXa7ag6mRTv70DW6KdW8b5FwWX/BX29WFScTr5u32sLHVrb547tShyScvgD BZmA5ZzSsTxK6K9saY+Nd6oE1LT4YuBepF6F0WTxBJRr+qVlvJkrOhfOeFG2KpzRJDi6 QBt3wSV8eE+yibGtLB4orotWj8fOrK5ces1xlvunaqjBCa3wBVVp9Tf8mdEp4FsYy0BM gwxg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682001660; x=1684593660; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pxi9IpG6aZlS2ea7f9KvFXXsLjtjIJw6RVyK1MK+FEo=; b=GWTkQPjh9OTUVXKdcdvsWiQzFM8pdjTtkOWCmrObcpLvRve2I55NVBcw5C0yZAtJlS RHkz49ThYxy6Ta3bUK/GQKXuRMlTOw4AM9efG7Co0knQW3j0JsWRutPQf59yRI6XmZQC lRTjcp2sCrb3riFQTheIG4MDhZbLLCC4IFxWtqw5cTqy6Q37BCA4MAamX82yqj3a+oRK tTSv0MmEi9pyJOaFYUPbKMxmvQOFxsrRhPIsuOyJtdGYtCkILhRY70TDE7wQjy30Rd+P 4GVEhgtjmYjE3nAJpKiR6VBDqmVYTvYk8/2lu2vqBqakF1PegLspa6Bn4Aa0h01Ogj5k RoXg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cUZRcwRldnVHGf0hl+Msc4a0QTQM5SOr9Swd/d/zwQiFp1hxt7 c3kPeM/SDv5cAmHbAXuKeFYFJp0ulJlIgLN7kuE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZpULMrCAb0KQT+YFJfJB9uUXrasAtZ367SI0CO2L2srgyZT1bPMQ2cK0RKNNKI9gLM/SPzLMC5IiLobIATY9M= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:20c:b0:18b:145a:827d with SMTP id t12-20020a056871020c00b0018b145a827dmr1381079oad.16.1682001660550; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:41:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <50a2198d-ed89-59b1-e4d1-efa672a1713f@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <50a2198d-ed89-59b1-e4d1-efa672a1713f@gutov.dev> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:40:49 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 3:31=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov wro= te: > > On 20/04/2023 17:25, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora wrote: > > Whoops, sorry, made a thinko. package-update_doesn't_ really > > obviate the need for eglot-update, because it won't be callable > > in Emacs 26/27/28, and eglot-update will. > > > > ...unless package.el itself becomes a :core package and > > self-updates through ELPA, which I think is being proposed > > around here somewhere. Could happen in master (and leave > > Emacs's 29 version untouched). > > > > So for the moment eglot-update is my best out. > > We could add it and then make a tentative plan (with a TODO comment) to > remove it as soon as a version of Emacs with package-upgrade that > supports upgrading builtins becomes the older supported version. > > That would be in line with our general policy of developing :core > packages anyway. Yes, for sure, we'll deprecate it and make it re-route to package-upgrade. And what do you think of the idea of package.el becoming :core itself. It doesn't seem to have many dependencies. If that were to happen and the fixed package.el you (or someone else) is going to eventually propose to Emacs 29 was out in the open, eglot-update wouldn't be needed. And we would never have these discussions under the shadow of the no-more-changes and the pretest's pressure. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 10:49:29 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 14:49:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38499 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVbE-0001aB-Qf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:49:29 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56672) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVbA-0001Zw-9t for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:49:28 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVb4-0000d3-3A; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:49:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=bZU5xaWjaDmor8MqEJBzb0FHovJlCawBKmRpl1LU7VA=; b=rhDPlAYe7aFGLJz7gVXj /KHoFwwygBhGdzT6/Zeod0qF45QO8ddFAtbc7PUEWd8H1SvcFINTbZ9kBwuIhhkADxMAOAGM/dftV LSI6KOmmSgL8VmRK6+jBMcjBMucZ87kAWWfQH5INjrw16LymZ5BFb9yNtk9dBo7vhsESqpdmTgmtl tK3dkCiVMS9isfgYC8uN0i+pw1ASWREKo1yTAm4bFn/UoA2d4S7ZHsNx7K6Z4TrlrTNzDQJSx9/aL lGrYDM9G+cMT5t+3vTc2OKhPUU2czMmuSq9uF/KNSd/RRp8+D/gbxNgWbMIaaCStixm6SGCBXWtA2 h3sbVTdV6Rq8hA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVb3-0003ZW-6y; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:49:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:49:30 +0300 Message-Id: <834jpa622t.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= In-Reply-To: (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:25:00 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: João Távora > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:25:00 +0100 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org > > Whoops, sorry, made a thinko. package-update _doesn't_ really > obviate the need for eglot-update, because it won't be callable > in Emacs 26/27/28, and eglot-update will. > > ...unless package.el itself becomes a :core package and > self-updates through ELPA, which I think is being proposed > around here somewhere. Could happen in master (and leave > Emacs's 29 version untouched). > > So for the moment eglot-update is my best out. Of course, introducing and advertising eglot-update will mean users of Emacs 29+ will need to use a different command to upgrade Eglot than users of previous Emacs versions -- the same problem that you consider so awful in the change we made in package-update, where these users will now have to specify a prefix argument (and do it just once, AFAIU). That is, of course, a very consistent logic on your part. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 10:51:03 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 14:51:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38504 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVcl-0001eE-Cj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:51:03 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:43145) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVcg-0001ci-99 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:51:01 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 265462401F6 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:50:52 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1682002252; bh=mmrBnW6m9CnFEfTXSV0CdO8sQ1to519/GGwyOR5A6t0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=MgD+2dl+hE83b2+mgygBAyl3jvdA1LEDs3zgzmIuuHeux5hyzoS12frsAthBQ/5XE D33ga8343xYfDyjT4R3o1O4cl/tJDMSXl/c/iMcqSt4R8u3zDjnYfeu0a2vNW8z1eg qsueAPTLwT5A3Pj5IZE6aHNitBDdyQKp3Kf/+i9ofhIunbGT/DnGpMe+3Il+MZFy8d nKyeuIa5gQbcM8MJXWsBbN3BB1TJTpANA7haxvMax/e9FCKViwDZLdvwvkz/AFX2Ms pKHrffhC3qO71WDq5c6qeQ+UP/lxhjo5tAXvPlS44q/alvTI8Y2bula203XKsM5yum DWxzHTgGmmFuw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Q2LF65lqGz6tvb; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:50:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:25:00 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:51:22 +0000 Message-ID: <87leim1uad.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii 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: -3.3 (---) (I haven't had the time to follow the thread in detail, so I might have missed some context) Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:56=E2=80=AFPM Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:39=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov = wrote: >> >> > The reasons for me to be less hopeful: >> > >> > - We seem to be unable to come to any agreement here. :-D >> > >> > Joao's approval for the above list would go a long way. >> >> First of all, thank you Dmitry for making such an extensive >> and detailed summary of the simualtion. It's really >> impressive. >> >> What you say about a fixed package-update obviating the need >> for eglot-update is totally true. In fact I proposed a fixed >> package-update much much earlier in this thread. If you >> manage to do that, then I'm more than happy to remove >> eglot-update. > > Whoops, sorry, made a thinko. package-update _doesn't_ really > obviate the need for eglot-update, because it won't be callable > in Emacs 26/27/28, and eglot-update will. > > ...unless package.el itself becomes a :core package and > self-updates through ELPA, which I think is being proposed > around here somewhere. Could happen in master (and leave > Emacs's 29 version untouched). BTW, everything that this would require has been done so this is not a far-off solution. > So for the moment eglot-update is my best out. > > Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 11:03:35 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 15:03:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38526 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVot-00028M-Ds for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:03:35 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f43.google.com ([209.85.160.43]:58451) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppVor-00028A-Eh for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:03:33 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-187af4a5437so712754fac.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:03:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682003007; x=1684595007; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=jcLklf1agdwwuCaaOz1jJkrcdSTJDvEirpjIBz5Zu+I=; b=hUu1CkAjK7CE2ds9lm6OPJ9QG1ajx1Nm1uQ7SXX3C0zwl1aQUffzVYiDZncEwsBIQ1 sXToEVccJ9WYpYMrluqpwDsuFmTn6mzUFLw0J6+/thlHRb9V+YAYXQ4fA5kU9IVc6gPG xmDKosB0wt76Fk/cpXiUon0Mtjw47VELVvUUfVDjM1JYWLHRvftWsfzjPXLHQ4YZE5w3 GGWRM4ZMabojZjETfm5xRuPgYuNz6LULTZ8V5H9aDWmwC3xPOm1Hdu3/RaXfeqL4xypo QpJgm6LKv8bfYkadhV0PxEhI0jnMXK2MAZJEvsV9mw68XQZQIx/2ChkMjmYrRkDglMJP zVLw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682003007; x=1684595007; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jcLklf1agdwwuCaaOz1jJkrcdSTJDvEirpjIBz5Zu+I=; b=jsSlNsZ22+ego7O/CWwg6N1zapi8mQKyp6VYsjZq66Bgsm7m3lmKfwZrzYFiPCxQsc D9o0lA+FmCCd9+SQaXx6JYB8Bgjsrh4IOQ+tKHYdBR1xqf3YQcO4q6uNPJc5mAWwOrMB rWroxGsWq3IiO+JCL2dBRgHFl8gAXgY1723L4mV6CZJhK0trqb60d4WII6xJS0u+nvSH jBOotBQXuYBIC+vbZNV+fo0Ot4EyD5qG/cLOZwqjy+XbNY8Y7tDyvqXij6vT6q3a2K65 Ju9ZWXRK8qW3LofFA+EgP8QBa6jU9+aJSycnVmB1YYWgfBlUFGoyF4tAuQ/KymqGMWlq vVeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fKE9fuG1Wz8x8csRChwcZ0gwk8f8xtNGO0OSXngvTLfiOuR8QA Ay+j7r5gXg+7oFIG6ydnHOqb8EDC6rR7tPYmdCE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350b+bePhaY0w/wJYqyuclG1KRQai38OGZKUQ/AQIWgDrFy3gQG7koE/7ytSO0DjUrGJPQddrIWQh+LXO2OulV5s= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:d189:b0:180:7b0d:2213 with SMTP id a9-20020a056870d18900b001807b0d2213mr1181144oac.54.1682003007657; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:03:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <834jpa622t.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <834jpa622t.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:03:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 3:49=E2=80=AFPM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Of course, introducing and advertising eglot-update will mean users of > Emacs 29+ will need to use a different command to upgrade Eglot than > users of previous Emacs versions -- the same problem that you consider > so awful in the change we made in package-update, where these users > will now have to specify a prefix argument (and do it just once, > AFAIU). That is, of course, a very consistent logic on your part. Sarcasm? It's my best out. eglot-update will eventually be available to users of previous Emacs versions. And I can precisely control its behaviour to "always update Eglot, no matter what" (which package-install didn't do -- BTW you mean package-install I think). And it will work non-interactively in a config. And the change you're referring to has been proposed for reversion anyway, because problems. I don't appreciate eglot-update especially -- I've said that. But it's the best out and won't harm anyone. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 14:08:29 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 18:08:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38646 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppYho-0007YO-OC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:08:29 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com ([209.85.128.52]:46736) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppYhn-0007YC-8l for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:08:27 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id ay3-20020a05600c1e0300b003f17289710aso1531760wmb.5 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:08:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682014101; x=1684606101; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=YlgIc7/VdZrz7vZriEh8oXv641Rh0Psr4ieZbBwtcKk=; b=dmA60slzqK7rasiinBDaPhXaU12VPTMXVBAQYH2nWwBBkKSrEYD4gQryrf6JyemohQ vnc+H9yTVy84a0KaTy2dxlHVD/hqfqlfvXF6fW+i/zA3/gWAzNYTnloHJ12gtLY7Ggjg mt0XTG51Pn/OF2rKoHWAe0ytc6euXbGVWm4+uskRPOSWbsN84v1br1uWv2dtnwCJ4aIb kQK7HhQCB6JNkP3kgqauez8HLYAuHn2Aq0JPoohUAbbXlKDS/waCll+X9v9S8Ic81bua 8daoJ7TfLdWk8mzPEdukOcwGgvMcKaSGkkUqh7HSwaKs1+LjHpkt0BLNyhfAr0mnFtdF yryg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682014101; x=1684606101; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YlgIc7/VdZrz7vZriEh8oXv641Rh0Psr4ieZbBwtcKk=; b=WVunbdZD/tDu/Yisw9f9A7qL1gsXuAPDt5aPPMIj2Ybl4F4jlcZbC6n779y4ydAlGR F9GW5kZgwwnZJ7s83byAhGuUhCi2tmuROBrC7FTCpD15FjG6eC4G6KeThnvrZu+RbjE9 1kHEwf6DoJk3ABk/MiiqPCwnkJfog18MWiors8PLBLLzToIf+qQ7Ef5Zryvk4ZZE9f/C 0LOdoeFK0k8iZOM1NePl0tf63MrZ7K7/1aCCfx1DCzGMJkLz7oXUYaleWhRmSEUwgmru tHncEM4CGB3/Zbx2hVU5Xjmctf/7dKfK4rrOLQlhIKkUseONGpUh/+gapnKocH0PlbZF zmBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9flqGVnLH81f88V5KWBNY/QtjQtLgOmUIIhPBRgPWnpce6IsVCi dPDQgzvGthFQqxolgXoMSIo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aKiuc03cGGlUd9FakyAdHfM8Fm0H193Ki3icrgvwGnlAR9kf+GUzjh0oR+uaGr1A8qMz1y0Q== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cb07:0:b0:3f1:7a57:45cd with SMTP id u7-20020a7bcb07000000b003f17a5745cdmr1973633wmj.28.1682014101444; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rltb ([82.66.8.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h5-20020a1ccc05000000b003ed1ff06faasm2655865wmb.19.2023.04.20.11.08.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:08:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Pluim To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:25:49 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:08:19 +0200 Message-ID: <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov , joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) >>>>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:25:49 +0300, Eli Zaretskii said: Eli> "We" never did want that. Jo=C3=A3o did, for obvious reasons, but= that was Eli> never my intent. The issue is indeed more general: what should Eli> package-install and package.el in general do with built-in packages Eli> for which a newer version is on ELPA? We don't yet know the answe= r to Eli> that, and no hope of obtaining one before Emacs 29.1 is released Eli> (barring any calamities). "We" may not know that, but by the principle of not giving me things *I* didn=CA=BCt ask for, *I* don=CA=BCt want ':core' packages being automatical= ly upgraded, unless I either 1. explicitly ask for such an upgrade 2. have myself somehow installed a newer version already, in which case it=CA=BCs no longer a ':core' package I=CA=BCve not checked, but does what=CA=BCs currently in emacs-29 not give = us at least [1]? Robert --=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 14:23:54 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 18:23:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38664 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppYwj-0007vV-N7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:23:53 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:48079) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppYwf-0007vA-Vj for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:23:51 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 247F32402DC for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:23:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1682015024; bh=r54CEFh5XGMYNWfiRcfobwHd9yFqMGwzcs0dRAGQ810=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=eopoflbL5QKnJGV1l+pGX4bzl0jqulQJxFQ7n5kzFx7a0LJ4xkxAenwDzze5Mz8sJ FxKBHxjZR0RBKRVhYMYs9u1lcWWz/fW+CdJxm8VbtruIEdAS851/t3ytVnxDAgORON 2PX8GJY/e2uGowWaLiyyosCCqKXTGckZPEH0DybMCt0jSY8zSqEfI0ah0hr0H+eVky bt3g6oA4qtzhjTqggMcFAynvut7QmcS4pDDG6DJXdgXJDloc3NC2XhJUCTNt8gQ8aL 1MZCkP5SM+gQ2gKGsZmrjYQuYcfxEFQv6SvciqbQfgMguVQWPIfj/hYLGfm5FYrsf+ LkU3UCwcD7bRw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Q2Qyk6nJqz9rxN; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:23:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Robert Pluim Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> (Robert Pluim's message of "Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:08:19 +0200") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 18:24:13 +0000 Message-ID: <87leim2z02.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov , joaotavora@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Robert Pluim writes: >>>>>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:25:49 +0300, Eli Zaretskii sai= d: > > Eli> "We" never did want that. Jo=C3=A3o did, for obvious reasons, b= ut that was > Eli> never my intent. The issue is indeed more general: what should > Eli> package-install and package.el in general do with built-in packa= ges > Eli> for which a newer version is on ELPA? We don't yet know the ans= wer to > Eli> that, and no hope of obtaining one before Emacs 29.1 is released > Eli> (barring any calamities). > > "We" may not know that, but by the principle of not giving me things *I* > didn=CA=BCt ask for, *I* don=CA=BCt want ':core' packages being automatic= ally > upgraded, unless I either > > 1. explicitly ask for such an upgrade > 2. have myself somehow installed a newer version already, in which case > it=CA=BCs no longer a ':core' package > > I=CA=BCve not checked, but does what=CA=BCs currently in emacs-29 not giv= e us at > least [1]? Yes, this is currently provided by C-u M-x package-install. 2. should (?) have always been the case. > Robert From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 14:53:35 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2023 18:53:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38693 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppZPT-0000O0-86 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:53:35 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f51.google.com ([209.85.160.51]:58399) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppZPR-0000Nk-J8 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:53:34 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-187af4a5437so878460fac.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:53:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682016807; x=1684608807; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=kTxqgkpAmIJwyYpNXS20yQEuR08go9/SXGTi3ehukzQ=; b=bon0s9LqZF3nzOCGo5qJ3TmKJTIq2Ooydm3N3Ex4mcmsVWJlTVDvjlo60XTV63T5Mk Lz37l5S+5Mo1KSzX5i0axr17cpeX+f5KUetC+daCOF2mcmboV9PeXl6QZEIc+/RKz/sd wHnTrUBBob7Um6Xoff4dtpqNZhV4O9EFNbcelZSDebShmOtsxA63+ny/G/s+YvFwzwTv sYYqnvDj5wZIAtq5+teDti9XVVYWkC1Ee/UTvDTsc7XqARXiRgKuIdZYz6hrz731X9l1 9rq3U7TnUdEzJYARGFwHPGbzB6TaRBV8WjyDitSCzmcO4lzMrOl9qZdICbePSz+Vgc+I Z3mw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682016807; x=1684608807; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=kTxqgkpAmIJwyYpNXS20yQEuR08go9/SXGTi3ehukzQ=; b=BaFb+XuS8KUyjBgb42TreSH2yY9FDk/4L6S8VfnLZ45lgCGBS0D1oFlyzf3X/7ae7A 0f2aNg1Lnu+/MgpS+RRZKYmPRr3Dvx6PnGVR9JVPPSG4zIOap9bNyVGM8AbDu579K8kG pP6O5+QwXfxTkr5yHJC7+KqVkkw8S+NDaLn4eMH5rhZwoqCIjh4G92s2ndKxHifDe/YT u8DcOrgkZ8SkFoCh9GmHZncbpAsXf7kuqkpV5yfUn25JOs88nIsJikeSMKIEgZmJChgP BW3OG344TgD+7MPxpjkFmn6uezDHNMXbKPNRZBnoHhatpSVdv0UKAOGwgJakyve2BIkO 8iVg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9f1W3utEnKSxq4L94H6pu/BNdT2mw/F8F9PhdpI2bUhu9tndXUF ekiBY52jFrKMCS3spfCuJDTfL84CTdwtld2sDP0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YtjmgqVKEDUy/eovBfPiQhMjDMPEGtJLVS1mJodDqC+hlOUc569FdXCR7V8TE4+y83WhoAU6d5abs2cyS/evE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:1490:b0:187:9b52:f58a with SMTP id k16-20020a056870149000b001879b52f58amr1987834oab.53.1682016807688; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:53:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 19:53:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Robert Pluim Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 7:08=E2=80=AFPM Robert Pluim wro= te: > "We" may not know that, but by the principle of not giving me things *I* > didn=CA=BCt ask for, *I* don=CA=BCt want ':core' packages being automatic= ally > upgraded, unless I either > > 1. explicitly ask for such an upgrade > 2. have myself somehow installed a newer version already, in which case > it=CA=BCs no longer a ':core' package > > I=CA=BCve not checked, but does what=CA=BCs currently in emacs-29 not giv= e us at > least [1]? Not when package dependencies are involved. If you weren't aware, in Emacs 26 (including 29), if you explicitly ask to install package A and it depends on :core package B, which you didn't ask to install, package B gets upgraded. In another data point, the last two patches I proposed to package-install are similar and only extend the "upgrade-even-if-:core" behaviour to two packages that weren't core are now :core. Those two packages are Eglot and Use-Package. The rationale I used to develop these patches was to protect users like you (inasmuch as Emacs 28 already protects you) _and_ to protect Eglot users. I am of course presuming that you aren't/weren't also an Eglot user, otherwise you would have been hit by these package upgrades related to dependencies in Emacs 28 and would have noticed them. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 20:22:45 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Apr 2023 00:22:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38922 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppeY0-0003wk-T7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:22:45 -0400 Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.230]:35981) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppeXy-0003wX-As for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:22:42 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F2D582426; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:22:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:22:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682036556; x=1682040156; bh=OJa2JGnHvZnwH8OHncGH66m0jewSqqITP0r CWNY3ILs=; b=JuwKKCE4W0gtc8EzDj7kalyFjSn/ZWkckEfGn00TdfEhh/5DN7e /m2c8HKs+6a/pVqa8UsIFPs9/Lop+BESJNh4Ak1q2ya/yWwi5qE/QjU64aC0V3Ga 4eh6ZCES1ZvroHunVFmFW8pkoHtgl9yjiCpQPhwq6zmq/cx6uzoR9qXwITSzQaWM Q6628JZSxvm/xjrvC5oY4/xLZQK/0I0uS4syi88XzRyOpO7zsZvAbn7kVMAxrf4t MQUiQStOzy7dy6fVZvyOKTtvtmajQo36Q8tmKMyEGM77PLKJOxlNfgdkHYqfN/lX S3UqQqWuBnT3l7F3mi14yTe0NgA66wrUkZg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682036556; x=1682040156; bh=OJa2JGnHvZnwH8OHncGH66m0jewSqqITP0r CWNY3ILs=; b=KSSg3YeWWMKzvQ2Lc7Y2ijCzoIIH/YytgE2N8SUzqKkkXxMLdK6 K3fUp7ZqLrTE4AttxbGszwY4MbFO3ZMjjhr5iQHv7P/t+8nL3Kzmx5SmB/SO4aSq 6JJaABMDO0mYqXvk6v9ebOGOYsPDWQdXIUzSO/vtJ72NS9T4o/Z3BVGS7hPRfHRU 9su4YZzwnJ3LRH1PGsFFhHJpQkIpqrKHjsYkelrjTFM/IrDclkczxXXRf9lr6v2t pwT1mPrESrHbq34xz9PjP/n+EbYYY572gPL0xMvNP5b7DPikVe+UXU9ZMEgdUUAn 86r1d+fLTXfMOaD50AgD5T6IRIEKyiktTuw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtfedgfeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4fa6c27f-214e-a03f-17be-2e32d64a2795@gutov.dev> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 03:22:32 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <50a2198d-ed89-59b1-e4d1-efa672a1713f@gutov.dev> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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: -2.9 (--) On 20/04/2023 17:40, João Távora wrote: > Yes, for sure, we'll deprecate it and make it re-route to > package-upgrade. And what do you think of the idea of package.el > becoming :core itself. It doesn't seem to have many dependencies. > If that were to happen and the fixed package.el you (or someone else) > is going to eventually propose to Emacs 29 was out in the open, > eglot-update wouldn't be needed. And we would never have these > discussions under the shadow of the no-more-changes and > the pretest's pressure. I don't know, someone should really test that idea, hard. It could exhibit the same problem that some package upgrades do: the installed packages is not properly reloaded, and the new version is not quite usable until Emacs' restart (I recall you saw something like this with project.el). For such a central piece of infrastructure this could be a bigger problem by itself, and could even be made worse by the fact that the code which installs the new version of package.el also belongs to it, so it'll be hotswapped (right?) sometime during its execution. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 20 20:51:10 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Apr 2023 00:51:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38943 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppezU-0004jt-Vx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:51:09 -0400 Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.230]:39053) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppezP-0004iS-O2 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:51:07 -0400 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B483582085; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:50:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:50:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682038258; x=1682041858; bh=9mH2hZb6Ol6iT3SYhT1aw6ioFTsYrAOwznX wMIgX3Q4=; b=W4ilz507tcvYR8MIxEqgiiPiua+vntLVZWp4sU0Iuj4nijNRLuQ BJA12L+hAQEbfQxedgHPwoHuH29vwWcC5S4BDE37vmniu9T2RZ+WRhJAO6mCgH1f fiRpyDg0m29mc/GLCwz6XmusW+EVe0nI3U7tSjCoX79ui2LxsNhbq83rLGTuruWq uBIhBcj3oiXj4WEClwRoA8w4HUCBUL1I1WgyDn534OjcP2UdYUw2An1YiSP0NWkN 8D9WtFUvngKqmeMWYka6b/baRz7+VA9WKijqNglDZD2g5mhYvS4pgI8qU3FkW2At cNQMFJaC+92a7TvsfvuQEhyFhDxirdQdLcw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682038258; x=1682041858; bh=9mH2hZb6Ol6iT3SYhT1aw6ioFTsYrAOwznX wMIgX3Q4=; b=dukduaTtPiMf5+ehAg8YNA+5hyhosFT6wohWRWYM+XPaNRJrUea Z22szu+OPiv2lOS/mf0Eg8XcX+zyOrE9RPZf2f1eu+/C6ir7YBzpBMsGRfqfFWZ8 CwKV5BnJnJqX6SOjNQizRjDEaXedwOl9eVHHlpiYZVToa52KFyrx1YmFSXpI3fKw McjhxN/8PW0uLKW8Gnp/Dhl5PgSB7gB2C85Pjlz0PeX8kRUa6a35QJm5MYhpDRbs +gD1qyVl9N57RqFHZ1YYRkom/ESVPxkQDHW8ZV+tC0yDIwTDk6EIYa7UMKUZ10Xp M/t0AyYwxx4yoHOm8tyqp1MpNiuTNK2c9zg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtfedggedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 03:50:52 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 20/04/2023 17:25, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > What I miss in this description is something a bit higher-level: the > list of all the ways/commands/methods people use to install and > upgrade the packages. We must have this list before our eyes to make > sure we review all the behaviors related to these activities, if we > want them all to eventually behave consistently. Why list the commands people use to install packages if we're talking about upgrading them? Hopefully we'll decide that 'package-install' won't upgrade packages because it hasn't done that in the past. Or if it's still going to do that because we don't want to revert commits, we'll just avoid touching that. > E.g., you don't mention any commands invoked from the package menu. The command which people use to upgrade packages from the package menu is called package-menu-mark-upgrades (bound to 'U'), mentioned here a few times. I also said that I hope it's *the* main way people use to upgrade packages. The others would be package-update and package-update-all (can we please do the rename now? I know they've been in for a year, but just as this very discussion has shown, most people weren't even aware of their existence). >> - package-upgrade (nee package-update) doesn't upgrade builtin packages >> that never been upgraded before. It's a bug. Hopefully not too hard to fix. > > I'm okay with adding the same prefix argument to package-upgrade, > which would then allow upgrading a built-in package. IOW, a change > similar to what we did in package-install -- provided that the change > is safe enough to go into Emacs 29. If we agree it's a bug, why don't we just fix it? 'package-update' is an interactive function which itself it called from only one place: 'package-update-all', and since the plan is to improve both, we can make sure they only do what we ask of them: package-update will upgrade builtins when invoked directly, and package-update-all will upgrade them only when the builtin has been upgraded before (making it not a builtin anymore), or a new user option is set. > But note that AFAIU there's a relatively easy workaround for this: > install the later version of the package manually, just once. It's indeed a workaround that exists, and if we were satisfied with it, we would have closed this bug as "wontfix". But it's not a very friendly way to do that (the user must hunt for the appropriate version in the packages menu), and it's very poorly scriptable (you won't be able to provide an easy and readable snippet for the user to evaluate or put in their init script). >> - package-menu-mark-upgrades and package-update-all don't upgrade them >> either. That's not necessarily a bug, but a problem nevertheless. A new >> user option could help. > > A very relevant question is: can this wait till Emacs 30? If you ask my opinion, then I already wrote it. The only thing that looks potentially complex is fixing the pinning of packages to archives. The rest should be fairly trivial. Should we leave bugfixing and easy upgrading of builtin packages to Emacs 30? I suppose we could. Let me know if it's your foregone conclusion, then I'll just walk away now. This issue doesn't solve any problems for me personally, to be clear. >> - The current fix (commit 580d8278c5f48) is not comprehensive WRT to >> Joao's scenario because use-package-ensure-elpa short-circuits when it >> find that the package is installed ('package-installed-p' returns t). So >> (use-package eglot :ensure t) does not upgrade Eglot even when >> package-install-upgrade-built-in is t. > > I don't think (use-package eglot :ensure t) should automatically > upgrade built-in packages. I don't think it should, either. But IIUC that's the scenario 580d8278c5f48 was supposed to make possible. > We could make it do that if > package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil -- again, if such a change > could be safe enough. If not, then the same workaround as for > package-upgrade would do here, I suppose? What workaround would that be? use-package is not invoked interactively -- there is no prefix argument to pass. >> - package-install-upgrade-built-in is not nuanced: if we suggest the >> users to set it to t, that can result in making _all_ builtin packages >> upgradable with 'package-install'. > > It should be set to t only by users who indeed want all built-in > packages to be updated. That's why the default is nil. Sounds unnecessarily dangerous. >> Whereas I think we originally only wanted that for Eglot and maybe >> for use-package. > > "We" never did want that. João did, for obvious reasons, but that was > never my intent. The issue is indeed more general: what should > package-install and package.el in general do with built-in packages > for which a newer version is on ELPA? It could continue doing what it's done before: when a package is already installed, abort. For upgrading, we should recommend commands with "upgrade" in their names. > We don't yet know the answer to > that, and no hope of obtaining one before Emacs 29.1 is released > (barring any calamities). I'm not sure how we're going to get the answer to that question after 29.1 is released, too. Similar to that thing with treesit modes and auto-mode-alist. >> For this and other minor reasons I would suggest reverting >> 580d8278c5f48. > > Not going to happen, not unless someone comes up with a better > solution that is much better and still safe enough. Personally, I > don't believe such a solution exists, since we don't really know the > answer to the above question. Could you specify which problem it's currently solving? Some particular scenario. Then I could confidently propose an alternative (or not). >> But I suppose we could also try to make it more granular (e.g. turn >> the boolean option into a list). I'm not sure it's a good direction >> overall, however. > > I don't think we should go in this direction, precisely because we > don't know it's a good one. If we made it more granular, its use could become a reasonable option, then we'd be able to get some feedback from people who end up using it. I don't know what kind of people that will be, though. >> - According to Jim P., package pinning doesn't work for builtin packages >> either. Which could be a decent solution as well, e.g. putting something >> like this in the docs: (use-package eglot :ensure t :pin gnu) if the >> users want the Eglot version from ELPA -- and this form might even be >> compatible with Emacs 28. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to fix >> package pinning, however. > > As long as this is optional behavior (and AFAIU it is), I won't > object, but again, provided that the addition of this will not touch > any other code in unsafe ways. Yes, the use of pinning is and will remain optional. I'm not sure what code it will touch and how much, however. There is not a single function called "pin that" which needs to be fixed, the fix(es) will be somewhere on the common path(s) of package installation and upgrades, I think. >> The reasons for me to be hopeful are: >> >> - The functions are propose to fix are "leaves": those that are supposed >> to be used interactively, without (many) known callers in-tree. E.g. >> fixing package-update-all shouldn't affect some other part of Emacs as >> much as changing package-install could. > > Experience until now in this thread indicates otherwise: almost every > suggested change touched low-level code with many callers. It isn't > an accident that arriving at what was finally installed took so many > iterations for such a simple change. You might be correct at that, but note that I'm suggesting a slightly different set of goals than what had been discussed here before. So the changes will likewise need to be different. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 21 02:37:52 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Apr 2023 06:37:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39140 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppkP2-0005yP-2c for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:37:52 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59302) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppkOz-0005yB-Dj for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:37:50 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppkOs-0005lX-98; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:37:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=O+qwGLaEBxFAkmoPYp+/OmaL01TwP6KhSJ+ME/UFixE=; b=UiuPDXCVBse9ndn3jmLr 74RQ0G7bYIEqY1FpD0kmTJUE57l3jW292aO9hAIcQO/7zt+LnKb8EeTV/OEoY55DcOaMgU+SCgzcr lBGJATyBeh6JDAG5B7kospQTY4Q2fhexsRxJP2/hbYem9m6P/hk0/91eNznjNUcl1Qx6FLBCe4r2+ 6xrP2mPEYHUC5OboLw9555sMIf5fVeupVWNmCUGwlhepLGRG2L0Owr+RrszcaULjeZZ8WXAdSU3Qv nCaqJox9IU32jCPgqwT/X/0qAD3EK7oZiz07DGng17EENmB91JuSX8wkPZh71Y6axlcknZA2hh40M DZb1pYACEDM9OA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppkOr-00030t-7Z; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:37:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 09:37:56 +0300 Message-Id: <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 21 Apr 2023 03:50:52 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 03:50:52 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 20/04/2023 17:25, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > What I miss in this description is something a bit higher-level: the > > list of all the ways/commands/methods people use to install and > > upgrade the packages. We must have this list before our eyes to make > > sure we review all the behaviors related to these activities, if we > > want them all to eventually behave consistently. > > Why list the commands people use to install packages if we're talking > about upgrading them? I said "to install and upgrade", not just "install". And I do think we should also consider commands that install packages because they are part of this issue, and in particular, should be consistent with the upgrade commands. Also, package-install was the original cause of this thread. > Hopefully we'll decide that 'package-install' > won't upgrade packages because it hasn't done that in the past. But it does upgrade non-built-in packages, doesn't it? And at least João (and I think others as well) expected it to upgrade Eglot even though it is now built in. > > E.g., you don't mention any commands invoked from the package menu. > > The command which people use to upgrade packages from the package menu > is called package-menu-mark-upgrades (bound to 'U'), mentioned here a > few times. I also said that I hope it's *the* main way people use to > upgrade packages. > > The others would be package-update and package-update-all (can we please > do the rename now? I know they've been in for a year, but just as this > very discussion has shown, most people weren't even aware of their > existence). If the list you provided covers all of the relevant commands and functions, fine. Still, for completeness' sake, we should have the higher-level description as well, as a framework against which to examine the proposed solutions. And I'm still not convinced that we covered all the relevant package-menu commands. > >> - package-upgrade (nee package-update) doesn't upgrade builtin packages > >> that never been upgraded before. It's a bug. Hopefully not too hard to fix. > > > > I'm okay with adding the same prefix argument to package-upgrade, > > which would then allow upgrading a built-in package. IOW, a change > > similar to what we did in package-install -- provided that the change > > is safe enough to go into Emacs 29. > > If we agree it's a bug, why don't we just fix it? Precisely because, as with package-install, this is a bug for some and a feature for others, depending on whether people do or don't want the built-in packages to be upgraded by default. > 'package-update' is an > interactive function which itself it called from only one place: > 'package-update-all', and since the plan is to improve both, we can make > sure they only do what we ask of them: package-update will upgrade > builtins when invoked directly, and package-update-all will upgrade them > only when the builtin has been upgraded before (making it not a builtin > anymore), or a new user option is set. This is one possibility, and it might make sense to some users. But I don't think we can be sure it will make sense to an overwhelming majority of the users. > > But note that AFAIU there's a relatively easy workaround for this: > > install the later version of the package manually, just once. > > It's indeed a workaround that exists, and if we were satisfied with it, > we would have closed this bug as "wontfix". But it's not a very friendly > way to do that (the user must hunt for the appropriate version in the > packages menu), and it's very poorly scriptable (you won't be able to > provide an easy and readable snippet for the user to evaluate or put in > their init script). For Emacs 29, we don't have the luxury of rejecting slightly awkward workarounds. > >> - package-menu-mark-upgrades and package-update-all don't upgrade them > >> either. That's not necessarily a bug, but a problem nevertheless. A new > >> user option could help. > > > > A very relevant question is: can this wait till Emacs 30? > > If you ask my opinion, then I already wrote it. I'm asking everyone who reads this. > Should we leave bugfixing and easy upgrading of builtin packages to > Emacs 30? I suppose we could. Let me know if it's your foregone > conclusion, then I'll just walk away now. It isn't a forgone conclusion, because no one has yet shown the code to fix the issues you mention. If the code is safe enough and doesn't risk breaking some reasonable workflows, it could be considered for Emacs 29. > >> - The current fix (commit 580d8278c5f48) is not comprehensive WRT to > >> Joao's scenario because use-package-ensure-elpa short-circuits when it > >> find that the package is installed ('package-installed-p' returns t). So > >> (use-package eglot :ensure t) does not upgrade Eglot even when > >> package-install-upgrade-built-in is t. > > > > I don't think (use-package eglot :ensure t) should automatically > > upgrade built-in packages. > > I don't think it should, either. > > But IIUC that's the scenario 580d8278c5f48 was supposed to make possible. No, it was supposed to allow the user to invoke package-install in a way that upgrades built-in packages, something that doesn't happen by default. IOW, it was a partial solution to the original problem which started this discussion, see https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62720#5 > > We could make it do that if > > package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil -- again, if such a change > > could be safe enough. If not, then the same workaround as for > > package-upgrade would do here, I suppose? > > What workaround would that be? use-package is not invoked interactively > -- there is no prefix argument to pass. The workaround is to manually install the package from ELPA, once, using "C-u M-x package-install RET". > >> - package-install-upgrade-built-in is not nuanced: if we suggest the > >> users to set it to t, that can result in making _all_ builtin packages > >> upgradable with 'package-install'. > > > > It should be set to t only by users who indeed want all built-in > > packages to be updated. That's why the default is nil. > > Sounds unnecessarily dangerous. Which is why it shouldn't be the default. > >> Whereas I think we originally only wanted that for Eglot and maybe > >> for use-package. > > > > "We" never did want that. João did, for obvious reasons, but that was > > never my intent. The issue is indeed more general: what should > > package-install and package.el in general do with built-in packages > > for which a newer version is on ELPA? > > It could continue doing what it's done before: when a package is already > installed, abort. For upgrading, we should recommend commands with > "upgrade" in their names. If people agree with that, I don't think I'll object. But this is in a sense a breaking change: package-install will only install, and thereafter users will need to use package-upgrade. Some might dislike such behavior changes. And we will need to make sure that all the available methods of "installing" do not "upgrade", for consistency. > > We don't yet know the answer to > > that, and no hope of obtaining one before Emacs 29.1 is released > > (barring any calamities). > > I'm not sure how we're going to get the answer to that question after > 29.1 is released, too. Similar to that thing with treesit modes and > auto-mode-alist. Time will tell. If we have no significant new information and data points by the time the release of Emacs 30 is on the table, we will have to use our best judgment at that time. > >> For this and other minor reasons I would suggest reverting > >> 580d8278c5f48. > > > > Not going to happen, not unless someone comes up with a better > > solution that is much better and still safe enough. Personally, I > > don't believe such a solution exists, since we don't really know the > > answer to the above question. > > Could you specify which problem it's currently solving? Some particular > scenario. The scenario which started this bug report, see the message whose URL I mentioned above. IOW, we now allow users to explicitly request that package-install includes built-in packages in the list of candidates, and will therefore allow to upgrade them. > >> But I suppose we could also try to make it more granular (e.g. turn > >> the boolean option into a list). I'm not sure it's a good direction > >> overall, however. > > > > I don't think we should go in this direction, precisely because we > > don't know it's a good one. > > If we made it more granular, its use could become a reasonable option, > then we'd be able to get some feedback from people who end up using it. > I don't know what kind of people that will be, though. It could be a reasonable option, or it could be a nuisance because of a gratuitous proliferation of too-granular options. To make a good decision, we need data and experience we don't have yet. So let's not rush into solutions about which we are uncertain. We can always make a boolean option have more values in the future, this kind of change is usually easy and backward-compatible. > >> - The functions are propose to fix are "leaves": those that are supposed > >> to be used interactively, without (many) known callers in-tree. E.g. > >> fixing package-update-all shouldn't affect some other part of Emacs as > >> much as changing package-install could. > > > > Experience until now in this thread indicates otherwise: almost every > > suggested change touched low-level code with many callers. It isn't > > an accident that arriving at what was finally installed took so many > > iterations for such a simple change. > > You might be correct at that, but note that I'm suggesting a slightly > different set of goals than what had been discussed here before. So the > changes will likewise need to be different. It's possible. I said what I said not as an up-front decision, but as a warning: we should not raise our expectations too high. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 21 06:19:53 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Apr 2023 10:19:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39423 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppnrs-0004Eu-G0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 06:19:53 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:40601) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppnrq-0004Ef-CC for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 06:19:51 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D265824C5; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 06:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Apr 2023 06:19:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682072384; x=1682075984; bh=W1c4+UKUbcd3A6NdknmvAjqJg4ixVK56Bpv Wv+sN6lA=; b=QVseYItl0ffi6KZDdZ4grYxhvCItID3+TnmJX7DwQUqWVNv5Asj kmqWVwxi1UlXh3OIcJoxGu25HS+tQQRd0EJ+OjEXfERLvbU0X/i7QxEiCBYrbW8Q aL+hCOvfhpmaMK4ZllkT/OxkTT0htK2VqZzMfeZC3e2V+S0gXgl5BwfgH2AE6Eb/ kgDh2fFcmm2U7QcFwUz7gF7hQscaeu3G/wE+O/MSl/Yn9psl6lwdF+JgTjj1gWuQ umSgCvWYPRwGA86iYmOxZW/9j02cMwMJAtdIoxW6x+nehU7r100fXkl0EBihB0V/ sOaPzPseFF0aLX5/LdKtLLZh4RJbTbkRfPA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682072384; x=1682075984; bh=W1c4+UKUbcd3A6NdknmvAjqJg4ixVK56Bpv Wv+sN6lA=; b=eLoz3Xy3NyADA13HUHis3uWxBkUU1JvP71QFN7ULJtOl2W250HK 45cvSQBExy61kYkMJ2gr1a07CweI8vDS2ve4FaXUuKSIpxUzwRdewd6OfGq0loMb eyNSLoxoXsMCcMnZnahUOwukN4uoSGNU6r/FNRWqgu07wBJpyCCH9H0EkvICFLjx ykv+GWv80lFeIxTVGZYLb9Nq6ZKLb6f+K5KB4rlQrHlKdQjjH/v1UBJ/VraVzdSz oWF89MljjU9egom1fMNFPJqivM0DaO6T3x9PxHF9eMzZKz8zo7fZfeinLMTWh3K0 pTD+QuFd4ZC3dqaKoHeyC6urUbwzVBvdNpg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtgedgvdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepvdetffektdfftdelledtgedtuddufffhvdeilefgfedujefhheeiueeugfeh geeunecuffhomhgrihhnpehgnhhurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenuc frrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 06:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:19:39 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 21/04/2023 09:37, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Why list the commands people use to install packages if we're talking >> about upgrading them? > > I said "to install and upgrade", not just "install". I listed the upgrade commands. > And I do think we should also consider commands that install packages > because they are part of this issue, and in particular, should be > consistent with the upgrade commands. Also, package-install was the > original cause of this thread. Okay, we also have package-menu-mark-install and package-menu-execute. >> Hopefully we'll decide that 'package-install' >> won't upgrade packages because it hasn't done that in the past. > > But it does upgrade non-built-in packages, doesn't it? Apparently not. I didn't remember whether it does, and I deduced that it does just from reading this discussion previously, but it does not. E.g. just now pressing 'U' after 'M-x list-packages' showed me that I have available upgrades for a lot of packages. But still if I evaluate (package-install 'sml-mode) where sml-mode is one of said packages, I just get the message: ‘sml-mode’ is already installed > And at least > João (and I think others as well) expected it to upgrade Eglot even > though it is now built in. I think he wants that because this way (package-install 'eglot) and (use-package eglot :ensure t) could match the behavior of Emacs 28 with an empty init directory. Backward compatibility and all that. But I think that's questionable, semantically. Given that Eglot is already "installed". Though, of course, one could argue that a bundled package is not exactly installed, but then we should change what 'package-installed-p' does as well. And think hard before doing that. >> The others would be package-update and package-update-all (can we please >> do the rename now? I know they've been in for a year, but just as this >> very discussion has shown, most people weren't even aware of their >> existence). > > If the list you provided covers all of the relevant commands and > functions, fine. Still, for completeness' sake, we should have the > higher-level description as well, as a framework against which to > examine the proposed solutions. And I'm still not convinced that we > covered all the relevant package-menu commands. It might be easier if you just ask additional question during review. >>>> - package-upgrade (nee package-update) doesn't upgrade builtin packages >>>> that never been upgraded before. It's a bug. Hopefully not too hard to fix. >>> >>> I'm okay with adding the same prefix argument to package-upgrade, >>> which would then allow upgrading a built-in package. IOW, a change >>> similar to what we did in package-install -- provided that the change >>> is safe enough to go into Emacs 29. >> >> If we agree it's a bug, why don't we just fix it? > > Precisely because, as with package-install, this is a bug for some and > a feature for others, depending on whether people do or don't want the > built-in packages to be upgraded by default. I'm having a hard time imagining someone evaluating (package-upgrade 'eglot) without intention to upgrade it to the latest version. Or invoking it interactively with same argument, expecting a different result. I don't think anyone will put it straight this way into their init script either. >> 'package-update' is an >> interactive function which itself it called from only one place: >> 'package-update-all', and since the plan is to improve both, we can make >> sure they only do what we ask of them: package-update will upgrade >> builtins when invoked directly, and package-update-all will upgrade them >> only when the builtin has been upgraded before (making it not a builtin >> anymore), or a new user option is set. > > This is one possibility, and it might make sense to some users. But I > don't think we can be sure it will make sense to an overwhelming > majority of the users. Hence the user option? But okay, this particular addition, though trivial, we could probably postpone until Emacs 30, or even avoid adding at all. It is indeed not obvious that people will really need it, although (setq package-upgradable-builtins '(eglot use-package)) (package-upgrade-all) ;; or M-x package-upgrade-all ;; or 'U' in the list-packages menu seems like a plausible scenario for a certain kind of user. Because package-upgrade does not have a menu entry, or a button anywhere, whereas package-upgradable-builtins can be altered from the Customize UI. >>>> - The current fix (commit 580d8278c5f48) is not comprehensive WRT to >>>> Joao's scenario because use-package-ensure-elpa short-circuits when it >>>> find that the package is installed ('package-installed-p' returns t). So >>>> (use-package eglot :ensure t) does not upgrade Eglot even when >>>> package-install-upgrade-built-in is t. >>> >>> I don't think (use-package eglot :ensure t) should automatically >>> upgrade built-in packages. >> >> I don't think it should, either. >> >> But IIUC that's the scenario 580d8278c5f48 was supposed to make possible. > > No, it was supposed to allow the user to invoke package-install in a > way that upgrades built-in packages, something that doesn't happen by > default. IOW, it was a partial solution to the original problem which > started this discussion, see > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62720#5 Fair enough. >>> We could make it do that if >>> package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil -- again, if such a change >>> could be safe enough. If not, then the same workaround as for >>> package-upgrade would do here, I suppose? >> >> What workaround would that be? use-package is not invoked interactively >> -- there is no prefix argument to pass. > > The workaround is to manually install the package from ELPA, once, > using "C-u M-x package-install RET". That's not the use-package workflow. >>>> Whereas I think we originally only wanted that for Eglot and maybe >>>> for use-package. >>> >>> "We" never did want that. João did, for obvious reasons, but that was >>> never my intent. The issue is indeed more general: what should >>> package-install and package.el in general do with built-in packages >>> for which a newer version is on ELPA? >> >> It could continue doing what it's done before: when a package is already >> installed, abort. For upgrading, we should recommend commands with >> "upgrade" in their names. > > If people agree with that, I don't think I'll object. But this is in > a sense a breaking change: package-install will only install, and > thereafter users will need to use package-upgrade. Some might dislike > such behavior changes. And we will need to make sure that all the > available methods of "installing" do not "upgrade", for consistency. Yeah, apparently it won't be a breaking change, or a change at all. >>>> For this and other minor reasons I would suggest reverting >>>> 580d8278c5f48. >>> >>> Not going to happen, not unless someone comes up with a better >>> solution that is much better and still safe enough. Personally, I >>> don't believe such a solution exists, since we don't really know the >>> answer to the above question. >> >> Could you specify which problem it's currently solving? Some particular >> scenario. > > The scenario which started this bug report, see the message whose URL > I mentioned above. IOW, we now allow users to explicitly request that > package-install includes built-in packages in the list of candidates, > and will therefore allow to upgrade them. After we fix 'package-upgrade', users will be able to 'M-x package-upgrade RET eglot RET'. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 21 07:05:37 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Apr 2023 11:05:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39458 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppoa8-0005ii-As for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:05:37 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55854) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppoa5-0005iS-M2 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:05:34 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppoZz-0002fE-8V; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:05:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=TlzM3rgssFFbwbsGMbJnliiSiEBAKKnbXZr1LDXSfSs=; b=G1ZVEa/fvHGLdMHUznw3 2AuK3EwVN3PfjV51P32s3NjrzluGYQMLEzdQGoYK7+a/WHGZw00Cn2Bv5sNcbqseh8XEg2jahg7Uy VQOe9+JFNxJfNQBOHoASJ/bRNFa2M6YgkwYXrdhrWoZL6JhAnCSzKKVSWGvTpjA7VmfHoQgv/wTIk zorPvMex47F/lYCxLC+22vLXc4OPlIOrllsj8QQb3SvvKmd+tyLuwDQ6QSFrbKsTrB/tJUiLeoh5F 4D3pHxZqBRBgIlfwr5l30unW4P9hiQ2vx7G6Lmslc/yvbgcIo1zVL0PSmOGpJJhGk37KhnHnzW9VX lH3WAYXMIrtjgw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppoZy-0004U4-OL; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:05:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:05:41 +0300 Message-Id: <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:19:39 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:19:39 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 21/04/2023 09:37, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> Why list the commands people use to install packages if we're talking > >> about upgrading them? > > > > I said "to install and upgrade", not just "install". > > I listed the upgrade commands. Yes, and I think we should consider both install and upgrade commands. > >> Hopefully we'll decide that 'package-install' > >> won't upgrade packages because it hasn't done that in the past. > > > > But it does upgrade non-built-in packages, doesn't it? > > Apparently not. I didn't remember whether it does, and I deduced that it > does just from reading this discussion previously, but it does not. > > E.g. just now pressing 'U' after 'M-x list-packages' showed me that I > have available upgrades for a lot of packages. But still if I evaluate > > (package-install 'sml-mode) > > where sml-mode is one of said packages, I just get the message: > > ‘sml-mode’ is already installed > > > And at least > > João (and I think others as well) expected it to upgrade Eglot even > > though it is now built in. > > I think he wants that because this way (package-install 'eglot) and > (use-package eglot :ensure t) could match the behavior of Emacs 28 with > an empty init directory. Backward compatibility and all that. But if, with older Emacsen, package-install would refuse to update to a newer version of Eglot if _some_ older version of Eglot is already installed, then where's the problem with the default behavior of package-install? it behaves exactly like in previous versions of Emacs. And why is this a problem for users of Eglot, if they couldn't use package-install more than once for Eglot anyway? Something is amiss here. > But I think that's questionable, semantically. Given that Eglot is > already "installed". Though, of course, one could argue that a bundled > package is not exactly installed, but then we should change what > 'package-installed-p' does as well. And think hard before doing that. I'd question why we have two commands instead of just one, but that's probably water under the bridge at this point. > >>>> - package-upgrade (nee package-update) doesn't upgrade builtin packages > >>>> that never been upgraded before. It's a bug. Hopefully not too hard to fix. > >>> > >>> I'm okay with adding the same prefix argument to package-upgrade, > >>> which would then allow upgrading a built-in package. IOW, a change > >>> similar to what we did in package-install -- provided that the change > >>> is safe enough to go into Emacs 29. > >> > >> If we agree it's a bug, why don't we just fix it? > > > > Precisely because, as with package-install, this is a bug for some and > > a feature for others, depending on whether people do or don't want the > > built-in packages to be upgraded by default. > > I'm having a hard time imagining someone evaluating (package-upgrade > 'eglot) without intention to upgrade it to the latest version. Or > invoking it interactively with same argument, expecting a different result. In interactive invocation, package-upgrade calls completing-read with its 4th argument non-nil, so you cannot select a package which is not in the collection returned by package--updateable-packages. What I meant above is to allow that collection to include built-in packages as optional behavior. I just tried invoking package-update for ElDoc, and I get "No match" after typing "eldoc" to its prompt, although eldoc version 1.14.0 is in the list presented by list-packages as "available". > >> 'package-update' is an > >> interactive function which itself it called from only one place: > >> 'package-update-all', and since the plan is to improve both, we can make > >> sure they only do what we ask of them: package-update will upgrade > >> builtins when invoked directly, and package-update-all will upgrade them > >> only when the builtin has been upgraded before (making it not a builtin > >> anymore), or a new user option is set. > > > > This is one possibility, and it might make sense to some users. But I > > don't think we can be sure it will make sense to an overwhelming > > majority of the users. > > Hence the user option? Which one? Are you suggesting to add a new one? If so, why not use the one we already added, package-install-upgrade-built-in? > But okay, this particular addition, though trivial, we could probably > postpone until Emacs 30, or even avoid adding at all. It is indeed not > obvious that people will really need it, although If by "this particular addition" you mean to allow package-update to update built-in packages, then I thought adding that for consistency with package-install was one of your main bothers? Or what am I missing? > (setq package-upgradable-builtins '(eglot use-package)) > (package-upgrade-all) > ;; or M-x package-upgrade-all > ;; or 'U' in the list-packages menu > > seems like a plausible scenario for a certain kind of user. Why not treat the fact that some version was already installed from ELPA as an indication that the user wants this? > Because > package-upgrade does not have a menu entry, or a button anywhere, > whereas package-upgradable-builtins can be altered from the Customize UI. Maybe marking a package in the list for update could be interpreted as "upgrade that, no questions asked", and we will need no user options? > >>> We could make it do that if > >>> package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil -- again, if such a change > >>> could be safe enough. If not, then the same workaround as for > >>> package-upgrade would do here, I suppose? > >> > >> What workaround would that be? use-package is not invoked interactively > >> -- there is no prefix argument to pass. > > > > The workaround is to manually install the package from ELPA, once, > > using "C-u M-x package-install RET". > > That's not the use-package workflow. The use-package workflow should perhaps get a separate and different solution. > >>>> Whereas I think we originally only wanted that for Eglot and maybe > >>>> for use-package. > >>> > >>> "We" never did want that. João did, for obvious reasons, but that was > >>> never my intent. The issue is indeed more general: what should > >>> package-install and package.el in general do with built-in packages > >>> for which a newer version is on ELPA? > >> > >> It could continue doing what it's done before: when a package is already > >> installed, abort. For upgrading, we should recommend commands with > >> "upgrade" in their names. > > > > If people agree with that, I don't think I'll object. But this is in > > a sense a breaking change: package-install will only install, and > > thereafter users will need to use package-upgrade. Some might dislike > > such behavior changes. And we will need to make sure that all the > > available methods of "installing" do not "upgrade", for consistency. > > Yeah, apparently it won't be a breaking change, or a change at all. I'm not sure, see above. Also, when you mark packages for update from the list presented by list-packages, the menu entry says i Mark for Install and its help-echo says "Mark a package for installation and move to the next line", so we already confuse "install" and "upgrade". > >>>> For this and other minor reasons I would suggest reverting > >>>> 580d8278c5f48. > >>> > >>> Not going to happen, not unless someone comes up with a better > >>> solution that is much better and still safe enough. Personally, I > >>> don't believe such a solution exists, since we don't really know the > >>> answer to the above question. > >> > >> Could you specify which problem it's currently solving? Some particular > >> scenario. > > > > The scenario which started this bug report, see the message whose URL > > I mentioned above. IOW, we now allow users to explicitly request that > > package-install includes built-in packages in the list of candidates, > > and will therefore allow to upgrade them. > > After we fix 'package-upgrade', users will be able to 'M-x > package-upgrade RET eglot RET'. This goes back to the issue of having two confusingly-similar but different commands, as mentioned above. I guess we should first make up our minds what, if anything, we want to do about this. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 21 19:12:38 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Apr 2023 23:12:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41363 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppzvh-0000M6-Ft for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 19:12:38 -0400 Received: from wnew1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.26]:33575) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppzve-0000Ls-BI for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 19:12:36 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2792B04FD5; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 19:12:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Apr 2023 19:12:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682118747; x=1682122347; bh=VXSt5DM1WJH4endKnrnrFf9Pr1Ucf26O9T8 Fg2gyfW4=; b=Op++OBLFEOtpsfj2839UdyXBEDrLzBmy3vmFdGG1EbewQjuWNqs oVzaEgDzEwVzsnPlcDXVhvrbsLUeNUs4zelx9+xQEmwW4pXToVO4IIJOojG6Eb/7 SrnftFnL65XzAIf9J+Au8nmI+a7VAGAT5YUcKvV+mqS8ONE/ZazLgHXQNpRo6qlQ 2Xqc+k90lSkjAQEHiD05AsS7/5WWaT8Rb6GmemtYZ18FPen76z0q3PGAB6Zb/w0M P07ZHQey7aKL6ymelnAylHxiCJWRx6vrE1uBnrvpNHEWNAYgkHA7SCZamVOtRuvX 7ggFzMmpMQz068WMAcLQX2LSJGtSxuxJNwA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682118747; x=1682122347; bh=VXSt5DM1WJH4endKnrnrFf9Pr1Ucf26O9T8 Fg2gyfW4=; b=jkoGYIiEnNX54eeyTm9Sjeg5MAYjkhJq17dJM7t+5sgG0QLYvin b+fCfiGGS8YJKW9zBHkg4FdzO7FBxrpGkYMsWR/Oyb+xB89iMEI341MaavNWJYlA wEay/mrdxyNxmj54tKlQcrqtbQvmiGRQ0vHPVYfF18vogdRYuCwTw0D/02JeO6WT CMxkC6t1Kc5whFM6pVWlgN+XoNq6zlZkF4x98k1lC/J3lVYvFrcIR0x2eix/zLsF hGVBlB6GF/2/JWQe/ZtxGOfsKT9qzvolBZ2C5w+ZFmvTh5pp10jGI3NrDoxqw83G WVOlTlvyU6fwIRky/EA4SZ3+bGVLOP9CX4A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedthedgudelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfefggeelffegledvieevhfevhfejvefgiefggffgudduteffjeduvdekudeg kefgnecuffhomhgrihhnpeigkhgtugdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 19:12:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 02:12:23 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 21/04/2023 14:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> And at least >>> João (and I think others as well) expected it to upgrade Eglot even >>> though it is now built in. >> >> I think he wants that because this way (package-install 'eglot) and >> (use-package eglot :ensure t) could match the behavior of Emacs 28 with >> an empty init directory. Backward compatibility and all that. > > But if, with older Emacsen, package-install would refuse to update to > a newer version of Eglot if _some_ older version of Eglot is already > installed, then where's the problem with the default behavior of > package-install? it behaves exactly like in previous versions of > Emacs. And why is this a problem for users of Eglot, if they couldn't > use package-install more than once for Eglot anyway? > > Something is amiss here. The above scenarios (package-install or (use-package eglot :ensure t)) when ~/.emacs.d/elpa is empty, result in the very latest Eglot being installed when using Emacs 28. And will result in something different with Emacs 29 (not the latest version). That's not nothing: the CI scripts will have to be updated, and the user instructions for reporting problems will have to be made more complicated as well. Some possibilities will simply be gone (the user won't be able to upgrade Eglot to the very latest by deleting it from ~/.emacs.d/elpa and calling package-install, for example). This *is* a non-backward compatible change from the perspective of Eglot's maintainer. I, personally, don't really buy this kind of argument, but I figured you might. After all, it's rather in line with reasoning we've seen voiced around these parts many times ("X has worked this way for Y years, let's never change it from now on"). Classic https://xkcd.com/1172/. >> But I think that's questionable, semantically. Given that Eglot is >> already "installed". Though, of course, one could argue that a bundled >> package is not exactly installed, but then we should change what >> 'package-installed-p' does as well. And think hard before doing that. > > I'd question why we have two commands instead of just one, but that's > probably water under the bridge at this point. Either way would be fine, IMO, as long as the behavior is logical and matches documentation. But having a separate command to upgrade now lets us fix it separately without worry of breaking something more globally. >>>>>> - package-upgrade (nee package-update) doesn't upgrade builtin packages >>>>>> that never been upgraded before. It's a bug. Hopefully not too hard to fix. >>>>> >>>>> I'm okay with adding the same prefix argument to package-upgrade, >>>>> which would then allow upgrading a built-in package. IOW, a change >>>>> similar to what we did in package-install -- provided that the change >>>>> is safe enough to go into Emacs 29. >>>> >>>> If we agree it's a bug, why don't we just fix it? >>> >>> Precisely because, as with package-install, this is a bug for some and >>> a feature for others, depending on whether people do or don't want the >>> built-in packages to be upgraded by default. >> >> I'm having a hard time imagining someone evaluating (package-upgrade >> 'eglot) without intention to upgrade it to the latest version. Or >> invoking it interactively with same argument, expecting a different result. > > In interactive invocation, package-upgrade calls completing-read with > its 4th argument non-nil, so you cannot select a package which is not > in the collection returned by package--updateable-packages. What I > meant above is to allow that collection to include built-in packages > as optional behavior. I just tried invoking package-update for ElDoc, > and I get "No match" after typing "eldoc" to its prompt, although > eldoc version 1.14.0 is in the list presented by list-packages as > "available". That's what I imagined: adding a new optional argument to package--updateable-packages which would include builtins in the result. And only pass it when called from package-upgrade. Hopefully that's the kind of optional that you meant. >>>> 'package-update' is an >>>> interactive function which itself it called from only one place: >>>> 'package-update-all', and since the plan is to improve both, we can make >>>> sure they only do what we ask of them: package-update will upgrade >>>> builtins when invoked directly, and package-update-all will upgrade them >>>> only when the builtin has been upgraded before (making it not a builtin >>>> anymore), or a new user option is set. >>> >>> This is one possibility, and it might make sense to some users. But I >>> don't think we can be sure it will make sense to an overwhelming >>> majority of the users. >> >> Hence the user option? > > Which one? Are you suggesting to add a new one? If so, why not use > the one we already added, package-install-upgrade-built-in? The user option I was thinking of would probably be called a little shorter: package-upgrade-built-in. And it would only affect the upgrader commands. I'm not sure tying that optional behavior to the new optional behavior of package-install is a good idea (one upgrades, another installs). But I'm also not sure keeping the latter around is a good idea, as you know. >> But okay, this particular addition, though trivial, we could probably >> postpone until Emacs 30, or even avoid adding at all. It is indeed not >> obvious that people will really need it, although > > If by "this particular addition" you mean to allow package-update to > update built-in packages, then I thought adding that for consistency > with package-install was one of your main bothers? Or what am I > missing? That particular addition would be the option package-upgrade-built-in proposed above. One that would affect package-upgrade-all and package-menu-mark-upgrades only. So the plan minimum is to fix package-upgrade. >> (setq package-upgradable-builtins '(eglot use-package)) >> (package-upgrade-all) >> ;; or M-x package-upgrade-all >> ;; or 'U' in the list-packages menu >> >> seems like a plausible scenario for a certain kind of user. > > Why not treat the fact that some version was already installed from > ELPA as an indication that the user wants this? That's how it works now, indeed. And we _could_ leave it at that. >> Because >> package-upgrade does not have a menu entry, or a button anywhere, >> whereas package-upgradable-builtins can be altered from the Customize UI. > > Maybe marking a package in the list for update could be interpreted as > "upgrade that, no questions asked", and we will need no user options? There is no handy "upgrade that" binding in the packages menu. The only command that's available there related to upgrading is package-menu-mark-upgrades, which does that to all packages (except builtins). To manually execute an upgrade of one package, one needs to both mark the new version for installation (after first scrolling down the list to find it), and mark the current version for deletion. This is what currently an upgrade consists of. If they just do the first step, they end up with two installed versions, one of them "obsolete". package.el will hopefully handle this fine during activation after restart (ignoring the older one), but it's not a great configuration to leave the user in. All this is to say, the first step (upgrading Eglot to the version from ELPA) will be less user-friendly compared to the other UIs we have. But it's probably manageable, especially if documented well. >>>>> We could make it do that if >>>>> package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil -- again, if such a change >>>>> could be safe enough. If not, then the same workaround as for >>>>> package-upgrade would do here, I suppose? >>>> >>>> What workaround would that be? use-package is not invoked interactively >>>> -- there is no prefix argument to pass. >>> >>> The workaround is to manually install the package from ELPA, once, >>> using "C-u M-x package-install RET". >> >> That's not the use-package workflow. > > The use-package workflow should perhaps get a separate and different > solution. Possibly (I suppose people are welcome to submit related proposals -- the only reasonable one I heard is related to pinning, see previous msgs). My point here, however, is that commit 580d8278c5f48 improved the situation to a lesser degree that some people here might have expected. >>>> It could continue doing what it's done before: when a package is already >>>> installed, abort. For upgrading, we should recommend commands with >>>> "upgrade" in their names. >>> >>> If people agree with that, I don't think I'll object. But this is in >>> a sense a breaking change: package-install will only install, and >>> thereafter users will need to use package-upgrade. Some might dislike >>> such behavior changes. And we will need to make sure that all the >>> available methods of "installing" do not "upgrade", for consistency. >> >> Yeah, apparently it won't be a breaking change, or a change at all. > > I'm not sure, see above. > > Also, when you mark packages for update from the list presented by > list-packages, the menu entry says > > i Mark for Install > > and its help-echo says "Mark a package for installation and move to > the next line", so we already confuse "install" and "upgrade". But that's the thing: we don't have a separate action in the packages list to "upgrade" a single package. The bindings that you see in the menu are "Mark for [i]nstall" and "Mark for [d]eletion". The first marks a specific (usually newer) version of a package for installation without deleting an existing one. The second marks a version for deletion. Neither means "upgrade". The fact that having multiple versions installed will (probably) result in the newest one being used after a restart is great, of course, but that's still not a proper upgrade. But we can conclude that we do have two different installation actions: - package-install which will install the latest version of a package, but only if it's not installed; - package-menu-mark-install, which will mark a specific version for installation, disregarding whether some earlier version is already installed; the previous version will remain installed still. >>>>>> For this and other minor reasons I would suggest reverting >>>>>> 580d8278c5f48. >>>>> >>>>> Not going to happen, not unless someone comes up with a better >>>>> solution that is much better and still safe enough. Personally, I >>>>> don't believe such a solution exists, since we don't really know the >>>>> answer to the above question. >>>> >>>> Could you specify which problem it's currently solving? Some particular >>>> scenario. >>> >>> The scenario which started this bug report, see the message whose URL >>> I mentioned above. IOW, we now allow users to explicitly request that >>> package-install includes built-in packages in the list of candidates, >>> and will therefore allow to upgrade them. >> >> After we fix 'package-upgrade', users will be able to 'M-x >> package-upgrade RET eglot RET'. > > This goes back to the issue of having two confusingly-similar but > different commands, as mentioned above. I guess we should first make > up our minds what, if anything, we want to do about this. Sure. But even if we decide that we want to eliminate that split, doing *that* would really be a breaking change. I don't have a reasonable plan to present for doing that in Emacs 29, so far. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 21 20:57:21 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 00:57:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41410 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pq1Z2-0003De-H2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 20:57:20 -0400 Received: from wnew2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.27]:48917) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pq1Yx-0003DP-Cy for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 20:57:19 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25CF2B06840; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 20:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Apr 2023 20:57:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682125028; x=1682128628; bh=Gqzx80o0VgJufgsBNzU7fwZ2bsqqdqL3xmO Gkz7zz8c=; b=GePvUx1zbru06xOFX2016Hz5YR5NTbH+UEj3HOF1gb3bvaE1PvG RMnounuyPkgm2cd8IOHMjEVHvJnPb987GW0G0RPeq/jKjT6ofAHb/FSNS6rbe/v2 Ee/4ScpO0HAFIkRdzLMu6QdDhMqr8RyHXNr+Hp+ix2lQSvPO5di2cWphfojsa9zc +UhmGBlrnn4xsV73zOvX2gcYni5T90ioGjcw3qym8i42VyARponK/cGB/jxJ7/cG QqmA52tLupLvWS4EDJg1ST1oMqk1H9NgdLmtto/TogbyRyQZmL50Zaitwyb4kmye gAYIwZtLEkW14rvu3DCMcnyFXTrIj5AnmyQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682125028; x=1682128628; bh=Gqzx80o0VgJufgsBNzU7fwZ2bsqqdqL3xmO Gkz7zz8c=; b=j6dIrK+XoPkQt/BMgdIt5QdTzZIybkFNvsHQQeAFp1kNCOn8sKL smi/xKRs7i3kUyvoHG/gdKUsopwbDW9CQQUDPXwm8WApIx0lHVA/pfjsBGA3I8fA BfzdDVSWq6XEITENm4+VDzSLqG7w4mUCepauE6FAGUe7MCh+yb/Np6WvF9rjUmd/ o+XsltYwP7iGD3ZvZv2SdR24Mnt7RtZQ0+UMWjY6Ohndg619br77LWJDMAnsbQhl koO2LHcWqUTP22y56jYUdat2g2mwYdPcQRFCrZ+ApwEkaQc1dqGlCiMaJzzOn5De YJPHALptYUvy6pQ0OBGqtD6AdI0z4cJzwyA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedthedggedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffhvfevfhgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfeftdejleetffelhfffteefgfeggfejgfdtudeuvedttdetvdelffekvdeg udetnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 20:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 03:57:03 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US From: Dmitry Gutov To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) On 22/04/2023 02:12, Dmitry Gutov wrote: >> In interactive invocation, package-upgrade calls completing-read with >> its 4th argument non-nil, so you cannot select a package which is not >> in the collection returned by package--updateable-packages.  What I >> meant above is to allow that collection to include built-in packages >> as optional behavior.  I just tried invoking package-update for ElDoc, >> and I get "No match" after typing "eldoc" to its prompt, although >> eldoc version 1.14.0 is in the list presented by list-packages as >> "available". > > That's what I imagined: adding a new optional argument to > package--updateable-packages which would include builtins in the result. > > And only pass it when called from package-upgrade. > > Hopefully that's the kind of optional that you meant. Here's a patch which does that. The diff could be reduced (the package-update part) by binding the new option (package-install-upgrade-built-in), but I figured it's better to avoid interdependency while we're still deciding what to keep. diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el index ffa6272dd1f..1f0a47f6b6a 100644 --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el @@ -2270,17 +2270,21 @@ package-update "Update package NAME if a newer version exists." (interactive (list (completing-read - "Update package: " (package--updateable-packages) nil t))) + "Update package: " (package--updateable-packages t) nil t))) (let* ((package (if (symbolp name) name (intern name))) (pkg-desc (cadr (assq package package-alist)))) - (if (package-vc-p pkg-desc) + (if (and pkg-desc (package-vc-p pkg-desc)) (package-vc-update pkg-desc) - (package-delete pkg-desc 'force) - (package-install package 'dont-select)))) - -(defun package--updateable-packages () + (when pkg-desc + (package-delete pkg-desc 'force)) + (package-install-from-archive + (car (last (seq-sort-by #'package-desc-priority-version + #'version-list-< + (cdr (assq package package-archive-contents))))))))) + +(defun package--updateable-packages (&optional allow-builtins) ;; Initialize the package system to get the list of package ;; symbols for completion. (package--archives-initialize) @@ -2291,11 +2295,21 @@ package--updateable-packages (or (let ((available (assq (car elt) package-archive-contents))) (and available - (version-list-< - (package-desc-version (cadr elt)) - (package-desc-version (cadr available))))) - (package-vc-p (cadr (assq (car elt) package-alist))))) - package-alist))) + (or (and + allow-builtins + (not (package-desc-version (cadr elt)))) + (version-list-< + (package-desc-version (cadr elt)) + (package-desc-version (cadr available)))))) + (package-vc-p (cadr elt)))) + (if allow-builtins + (append package-alist + (mapcan + (lambda (elt) + (when (not (assq (car elt) package-alist)) + (list (list (car elt) (package--from-builtin elt))))) + package--builtins)) + package-alist)))) ;;;###autoload (defun package-update-all (&optional query) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 21 20:57:38 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 00:57:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41413 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pq1ZK-0003EC-1k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 20:57:38 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f50.google.com ([209.85.161.50]:53276) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pq1ZG-0003Dx-IV for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 20:57:36 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f50.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-541b61d166aso1618311eaf.2 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 17:57:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682125048; x=1684717048; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=h/D1H8hp2VOFA1AwkxX5xRcKp2M4pKaCEdb24JKuhog=; b=OXIaXMy1rBzdfVX5VqdEGE5W4mNzIzszIupg6Dq8eH79BH2SiOBjxGyBc+C8XaCUG9 De+zPtbDpt9Y3yKyMuDN/G/lBMTgu9HO4FRQXZPFwZwEqaRqJX4g6YkH5UNuA7IE2eLD LtM9AptexJSAB0tMVT3NgwCG6yqxRpG40KmENpmc6cXd0jiOKO78O+iDx2x094SmINKV 1rp9ySZjiY9qzwIzrvDP/7xH0668g9uKiUfZGdC8qQlno55stkbA0GlIeeoEfW0khdp/ 9xtdF60E66++5tcdgUVtrlkdYmyLskTaUICtRK2tooFemVgzOirwtwSKcWftxN+apHkX HwAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682125048; x=1684717048; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=h/D1H8hp2VOFA1AwkxX5xRcKp2M4pKaCEdb24JKuhog=; b=HSxS57RcMSHtWaeoyhYQka2/hdYWkP3aU2wuhlV+TglRbK6pnMD8X3Yibl/A42i/gp xS4Fegn0ZtfJTKb+swBbLEGFHCfhtDDQvyX5OfUyGccp5Bt0WxV2IsX/sr1MSfu8mxbb cBhUdExMP32247SkWeeqvckFlFncf+W3woNLyduwMkz6tcQVmik7o+dBIZaySxw1z0x7 Sp9wKMTw5CqRxE1fZjp/oSAszE7w1rAxUUmEhHSvuaZciKWNglJzK/TiwtlXAq9ohN1U +5+ICdh2fgwRywaDa1jW+uZShc42Er4ysR2s7jhZiRsMIOXDekozcREXVQKzzOKWUevv wS0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9f2oPfgOPCAW+KNPI2006USnmDk2pVtHYsTOwt+05Em0Bb+pR+q V8GPZqrRdqgOmBX0HR8aKbvE4VvXXDgDfKMyUiU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bSK8r7hBSBpWzensdKT8Z8tz2sjuODJh8IRg0f9e/ed6knTpLi5kpBcRLMpLNbUanldyNsKmKQchrUtbi1vH4= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:cb04:0:b0:545:bd13:18cd with SMTP id r4-20020a4acb04000000b00545bd1318cdmr2030382ooq.6.1682125048540; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 17:57:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 01:57:17 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:12=E2=80=AFAM Dmitry Gutov wr= ote: > I, personally, don't really buy this kind of argument, but I figured you > might. After all, it's rather in line with reasoning we've seen voiced > around these parts many times ("X has worked this way for Y years, let's > never change it from now on"). Classic https://xkcd.com/1172/. The CI + user instructions having to be updated is unfortunate, but I can change those (and M-x eglot-update is a simple way to give predictable consistent semantics for "bringing Eglot to latest"). Then there are the things I can't change, like users trying out a new init.el file, a very common operation -- be it for bug reproduction or just to try something out. Also note that package-delete + package-install interactively is a pretty good way to update packages in Emacs 28: no need to nuke the home directory. In general, it's hard to predict the damage of hard-to-explain different behaviour of these forms depending on whether you're on 28 or 29. Or, the way this seems to be going, 30. If 29 ships with this bug, it's going to linger for a good while, and get worse as time passes. If you "dont buy this", that's OK :-) I'm not trying to sell it to you specifically. I don't think we'll have torches and pitchforks either, but we're not really talking about "spacebar overheating" here. Note that I also don't really buy, personally, the "furtive update of :core packages" argument either. My reasoning is that that cat has been out of the bag for a long long, just because of dependencies which are absolutely liberally by package.el and the fact tha I've never seen a bug reported about this. I buy even less that people using M-x package-update in Emacs 29 don't want to update :core packages just because it doesn't do that right now. For me, it's obvious people weren't using to update :core packages because that command lived in master for the large part of its short life and in master :core packages don't need any updating, by definition. But of course fact that I don't buy it shouldn't mean that it should be disregarded (and noone is advocating for that). The last two patches I provided aim to aid Eglot users (lightly, as you've discovered, since the use-package use case is not well covered in the first one, and there's still the error behaviour to ponde). But, more importantly they are designed so that no cats that weren't previously out of the bag make it outside the bag Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 04:26:28 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 08:26:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41644 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pq8Zf-0007s1-7c for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 04:26:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39474) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pq8Zb-0007rk-Qz for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 04:26:25 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pq8ZV-0001h4-1c; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 04:26:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=rnNkEM2JdSmr/M00seVXQ+HUkL4gs5XHE/Y8Q0tZ4Pk=; b=AgPsFUElWYlQOm0fkl/E ErITmz/RnSZGkuMkvqU1iOn5oU5Wv7vfnm50/Y9ziKMHGzo1m0C9VoSIzOrejJ/+/QoJJIdaxiBn9 RjqSVeU9d36Pl3juxbgVqhOLl/vSpXOCifrdfenhNzUfboh5WRTXFzzW+W+VK4wvLjUhrLhEOhsZg X1l0QTfgfCWllO+bBuytVtTl0/Gt1xaTQ33ZVt2yd65qv1OUHs6p9VY4th34ITrV3fcv4UVnlq4a4 UurTynJVqSBKy8SMRaw592/CQnd8eIvA4A9Idi8tjIskaWivxby5PVd7QZP/ZE/P8TQuTKYKWR1v4 lfYWtfHwee/t7g==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pq8ZU-0008UA-2a; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 04:26:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:26:33 +0300 Message-Id: <835y9o2uh2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 22 Apr 2023 02:12:23 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 02:12:23 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 21/04/2023 14:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >>> And at least > >>> João (and I think others as well) expected it to upgrade Eglot even > >>> though it is now built in. > >> > >> I think he wants that because this way (package-install 'eglot) and > >> (use-package eglot :ensure t) could match the behavior of Emacs 28 with > >> an empty init directory. Backward compatibility and all that. > > > > But if, with older Emacsen, package-install would refuse to update to > > a newer version of Eglot if _some_ older version of Eglot is already > > installed, then where's the problem with the default behavior of > > package-install? it behaves exactly like in previous versions of > > Emacs. And why is this a problem for users of Eglot, if they couldn't > > use package-install more than once for Eglot anyway? > > > > Something is amiss here. > > The above scenarios (package-install or (use-package eglot :ensure t)) > when ~/.emacs.d/elpa is empty, result in the very latest Eglot being > installed when using Emacs 28. And will result in something different > with Emacs 29 (not the latest version). That's not nothing: the CI > scripts will have to be updated, and the user instructions for reporting > problems will have to be made more complicated as well. Some > possibilities will simply be gone (the user won't be able to upgrade > Eglot to the very latest by deleting it from ~/.emacs.d/elpa and calling > package-install, for example). This *is* a non-backward compatible > change from the perspective of Eglot's maintainer. We were talking about users installing and updating packages. The CI scenario doesn't belong here. It is also much less important one (test suites are always required to chase the changes in development). Let's not complicate an already complicated set of issues by bringing up unimportant secondary use cases. > I, personally, don't really buy this kind of argument, but I figured you > might. After all, it's rather in line with reasoning we've seen voiced > around these parts many times ("X has worked this way for Y years, let's > never change it from now on"). Classic https://xkcd.com/1172/. If you allude to my reasoning, then it is never that simplistic, and always considers each case separately, not "by analogy". > >> But I think that's questionable, semantically. Given that Eglot is > >> already "installed". Though, of course, one could argue that a bundled > >> package is not exactly installed, but then we should change what > >> 'package-installed-p' does as well. And think hard before doing that. > > > > I'd question why we have two commands instead of just one, but that's > > probably water under the bridge at this point. > > Either way would be fine, IMO, as long as the behavior is logical and > matches documentation. But having a separate command to upgrade now lets > us fix it separately without worry of breaking something more globally. Except that, based on what we have (see below) ,we don't really have an "upgrade" operation, we only have "install" and "delete" (i.e. "uninstall"). So maybe we should preserve that, to minimize problems and user surprise/confusion. > > In interactive invocation, package-upgrade calls completing-read with > > its 4th argument non-nil, so you cannot select a package which is not > > in the collection returned by package--updateable-packages. What I > > meant above is to allow that collection to include built-in packages > > as optional behavior. I just tried invoking package-update for ElDoc, > > and I get "No match" after typing "eldoc" to its prompt, although > > eldoc version 1.14.0 is in the list presented by list-packages as > > "available". > > That's what I imagined: adding a new optional argument to > package--updateable-packages which would include builtins in the result. > > And only pass it when called from package-upgrade. > > Hopefully that's the kind of optional that you meant. Yes, something like that. Presumably activated by the same new option introduced for package-installed. > >>>> 'package-update' is an > >>>> interactive function which itself it called from only one place: > >>>> 'package-update-all', and since the plan is to improve both, we can make > >>>> sure they only do what we ask of them: package-update will upgrade > >>>> builtins when invoked directly, and package-update-all will upgrade them > >>>> only when the builtin has been upgraded before (making it not a builtin > >>>> anymore), or a new user option is set. > >>> > >>> This is one possibility, and it might make sense to some users. But I > >>> don't think we can be sure it will make sense to an overwhelming > >>> majority of the users. > >> > >> Hence the user option? > > > > Which one? Are you suggesting to add a new one? If so, why not use > > the one we already added, package-install-upgrade-built-in? > > The user option I was thinking of would probably be called a little > shorter: package-upgrade-built-in. And it would only affect the upgrader > commands. We could rename the existing option, if the name is the problem. Otherwise, I don't see why we would need two separate options: they do the same job and have the same meaning from the user's POV. > >> Because > >> package-upgrade does not have a menu entry, or a button anywhere, > >> whereas package-upgradable-builtins can be altered from the Customize UI. > > > > Maybe marking a package in the list for update could be interpreted as > > "upgrade that, no questions asked", and we will need no user options? > > There is no handy "upgrade that" binding in the packages menu. The only > command that's available there related to upgrading is > package-menu-mark-upgrades, which does that to all packages (except > builtins). > > To manually execute an upgrade of one package, one needs to both mark > the new version for installation (after first scrolling down the list to > find it), and mark the current version for deletion. This is what > currently an upgrade consists of. Yes. So users could manually mark an new version for installation, and if needed mark the old version for deletion, thus indicating that they want this upgrade. No separate option to indicate the same is needed. > All this is to say, the first step (upgrading Eglot to the version from > ELPA) will be less user-friendly compared to the other UIs we have. But > it's probably manageable, especially if documented well. I don't see why it would be less user-friendly. > My point here, however, is that commit 580d8278c5f48 improved the > situation to a lesser degree that some people here might have expected. One again: commit 580d8278c5f48 solved precisely the problem which opened this bug report, nothing more, nothing less. The rest are late additions, which were not on the table when the original bug was discussed. So the above complaint is at least unfair. > >>> If people agree with that, I don't think I'll object. But this is in > >>> a sense a breaking change: package-install will only install, and > >>> thereafter users will need to use package-upgrade. Some might dislike > >>> such behavior changes. And we will need to make sure that all the > >>> available methods of "installing" do not "upgrade", for consistency. > >> > >> Yeah, apparently it won't be a breaking change, or a change at all. > > > > I'm not sure, see above. > > > > Also, when you mark packages for update from the list presented by > > list-packages, the menu entry says > > > > i Mark for Install > > > > and its help-echo says "Mark a package for installation and move to > > the next line", so we already confuse "install" and "upgrade". > > But that's the thing: we don't have a separate action in the packages > list to "upgrade" a single package. We agree. I'm saying that your suggestion to make package-upgrade a more important command is by itself a breaking change: there's no "upgrade" operation, per se, in the current code. > But we can conclude that we do have two different installation actions: > > - package-install which will install the latest version of a package, > but only if it's not installed; > - package-menu-mark-install, which will mark a specific version for > installation, disregarding whether some earlier version is already > installed; the previous version will remain installed still. Which is again a breaking behavior change, AFAIU. Is this a good idea so late in the development of Emacs 29? > >>>> Could you specify which problem it's currently solving? Some particular > >>>> scenario. > >>> > >>> The scenario which started this bug report, see the message whose URL > >>> I mentioned above. IOW, we now allow users to explicitly request that > >>> package-install includes built-in packages in the list of candidates, > >>> and will therefore allow to upgrade them. > >> > >> After we fix 'package-upgrade', users will be able to 'M-x > >> package-upgrade RET eglot RET'. > > > > This goes back to the issue of having two confusingly-similar but > > different commands, as mentioned above. I guess we should first make > > up our minds what, if anything, we want to do about this. > > Sure. > > But even if we decide that we want to eliminate that split, doing *that* > would really be a breaking change. I don't have a reasonable plan to > present for doing that in Emacs 29, so far. There's no "split". What I wanted to point out is that we don't seem to have a clear vision of these two commands, since they are confusing intertwined. In fact, one could argue that package-upgrade in its current form is simply a convenience shortcut for "delete old and install new". From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 04:33:28 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 08:33:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41649 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pq8gR-00084Y-LK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 04:33:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38806) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pq8gO-00084K-E2 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 04:33:26 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pq8gI-00032B-Jn; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 04:33:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=JMV3o+m9mEcxB10CzOIt4VccHFlCHI3ywL2NMI7hYMA=; b=NaIZSYoa7i69 zmzppiu+uvgdwhL1YKf4bD926Fkh6AOnplG5FtKaxl5B4GB0by9NLAPawvREMQqWjEnhtXSVxnJpJ v+L9YT9B0LfNO3q01sliVdpg4dTzz98a+OcuCQSDjFAcUk8rpRMFjcSOaQgDQ/j1/snoQdnJzLILs k21i1qJLcfrwDXEc6S8em1vY46P1IwKWZZgE2WkZFeO5uUMjsEVF0nliEc7HCfArtX8ZDd07YwrUx v9FRClul/2Ym3VkG+GfXPPPeHbVv0ddPrhEswzje6fLbMOLkuDbKNmvDk6/HBNVfBZbAFw8Tb8Nv6 VDeJHNLl5Dngj9VxOidVOA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pq8gH-0004Nv-Nq; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 04:33:18 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:33:35 +0300 Message-Id: <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 22 Apr 2023 03:57:03 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 03:57:03 +0300 > From: Dmitry Gutov > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > > That's what I imagined: adding a new optional argument to > > package--updateable-packages which would include builtins in the result. > > > > And only pass it when called from package-upgrade. > > > > Hopefully that's the kind of optional that you meant. > > Here's a patch which does that. The diff could be reduced (the > package-update part) by binding the new option > (package-install-upgrade-built-in), but I figured it's better to avoid > interdependency while we're still deciding what to keep. Thanks, but this is not what was being discussed, AFAIU. What I said I'd agree to is to have package-update accept a prefix argument and heed package-install-upgrade-built-in (perhaps renamed), and only then update built-in packages. I also don't think I like the significant changes in package-update, nor understand why they are needed. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 06:30:55 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 10:30:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41911 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqAW7-0003Mg-1f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:30:55 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:36285) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqAW3-0003MQ-GY for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:30:53 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4638B58228D; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:30:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682159446; x=1682163046; bh=rT9as8X2H78DvwlvowJsmqviPLyh5Q9GBMn qUoGqMpM=; b=Dc9+TUxhdTj3oe2XsFvqH3EJSeZsUa6oacMgn8MJjt7Pj/pwl6f bnznqph70MHRw9mmvWWV177tOKGDQdYbqQ8O5svDtBZORI6Hm/lCHfnOfVxTOfQn +dMvl8fN6Y3vqe8vxkX765URk1DgkUCgjeJql/54Y3NOz+g+o8YaqYM5AQ35pNb7 JmAIRmfkDJQh4W9Kt1gARYW1YJ1IDZ4WkcpmdSNQBytgLMXy1wOOd4x7J48fA077 mazXam+2x2vzXAkFaGoZluRTLwFg6Syy7xA3L2h4lZDvAjpwRFaJvQMrHWzMoT2c ubYuf5qU8XAMKEFXIeV85wIV49XFfuKKhOQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682159446; x=1682163046; bh=rT9as8X2H78DvwlvowJsmqviPLyh5Q9GBMn qUoGqMpM=; b=I+2p5VG8RR1Oc8VAk+ebaAqOl57toDZANm/KtPqXkgCe2Ao63Wj CETOsD9jaeYkTDiptLD3gFvY+yEEZK8psYkZgtVNL19sE4J663R2Dwih4zq0+29B +UlbwlnwfkYFHvYjANqDwM61PKEScvg/o2weo8E9IbWM40IQ6xeLr4wuweVbt+Pt wwlJ1cyWqAIx1KOpPTP/nwND5M/MxK6sx0RhBo3jCih24pDD0ngYI2UGn/IKjPNX NrcacL+kCXfPWs9+vj6XktG7giSxrwGOtwV2bUShJVTxhu7jHCODZdROWEEAcGlx Y/NIwZN1nKmQUd3UEUYoyVJTnJjH9FQrbRg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtiedgvdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:30:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:30:41 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) On 22/04/2023 11:33, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 03:57:03 +0300 >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> Cc:jporterbugs@gmail.com,philipk@posteo.net,62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> joaotavora@gmail.com,larsi@gnus.org,monnier@iro.umontreal.ca >> >>> That's what I imagined: adding a new optional argument to >>> package--updateable-packages which would include builtins in the result. >>> >>> And only pass it when called from package-upgrade. >>> >>> Hopefully that's the kind of optional that you meant. >> Here's a patch which does that. The diff could be reduced (the >> package-update part) by binding the new option >> (package-install-upgrade-built-in), but I figured it's better to avoid >> interdependency while we're still deciding what to keep. > Thanks, but this is not what was being discussed, AFAIU. What I said > I'd agree to is to have package-update accept a prefix argument and > heed package-install-upgrade-built-in (perhaps renamed), I think I explained in the previous email why reusing package-install-upgrade-built-in doesn't seem like a good idea. > and only then > update built-in packages. I asked what plausible scenario you think might be broken by having package-update upgrade builtin package by default. Do you want to answer that? > I also don't think I like the significant changes in package-update, > nor understand why they are needed. Like I said: the changes are to avoid relying on package-install being able to install a package that's already installed. Which currently works only for builtins and when only a user option is set. It's a mess. And to "avoid interdependency". Just to be clear, we are talking about the 4 lines at the end, right? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 06:48:53 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 10:48:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41926 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqAnV-0003sX-45 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:48:53 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:59163) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqAnS-0003sH-NV for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:48:51 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB405821CA; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:48:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682160525; x=1682164125; bh=ivkJ2nJqOM98vCIfQTtjSjFwQUPI4SPWIt8 LoIqH9dM=; b=ESwqHrdxa4mODAX0pi1EmpMhkjQpTy3tQCiLyDiuAWn3SA7xYoz BQWYhzgjVvHGWl5CTzEHf90/A5o0LcDiry0SfpMy2O6vkCvHMnFNplAumS1lfCfo 32vcETRToxQ0Hpl3YQlROG8wiJxGE3eKT4v3Riu5Oyds+8VeGMWUMffcAd30KtxJ ntJBOXvPXCwcKTuCqXgGZLfkBv/D0I08exq5pQ094Xy53P6V4vPHvxS+vXB4Tq7+ Yq7A0RXReFl9HjbS6Rxru3zmopK3N7rB2T9bRtstEHdFbo3GaeiDLUlSJTiofpM9 Vhjy09spgB6EZLG62AOBeo1YFpgm4rzUU7w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682160525; x=1682164125; bh=ivkJ2nJqOM98vCIfQTtjSjFwQUPI4SPWIt8 LoIqH9dM=; b=LNGD2KLsx/DVUIQvo9BPXn1Xm9zeOGR+wVsQ/7OOpIcDdSgnA4K kDA5e0S9DPNcoAy/0qHl1M44auB5QdiiKdJwV33/ZnPis64xXTg/wtRB+UtfnjHJ +3KaaqgsFgfw7QI+n0qvao7bMbPadbNCamWxZj+Z6YUM9BOPWZmfkGJz3ZaPNhbr XmrSh3PfwkYktPZ+71NPJvIDmstfzvvrSUrLKDS7nHih4adEEbqCpdMAuweYIbBz fms12PDLhIitck1FAh3t8wZYTn0pXuCyPk57yEG1VFQdTRMGGaPnqMog8SGei0Sa zudeat3GE06KJC9f5l+1gacSB06MJu6NZwg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtiedgfedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepvdekuedutdefffegkeevfeevgfevffejffdvieekgfeggfeghfduteehkefg leehnecuffhomhgrihhnpeigkhgtugdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:48:41 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <835y9o2uh2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <835y9o2uh2.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 22/04/2023 11:26, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> The above scenarios (package-install or (use-package eglot :ensure t)) >> when ~/.emacs.d/elpa is empty, result in the very latest Eglot being >> installed when using Emacs 28. And will result in something different >> with Emacs 29 (not the latest version). That's not nothing: the CI >> scripts will have to be updated, and the user instructions for reporting >> problems will have to be made more complicated as well. Some >> possibilities will simply be gone (the user won't be able to upgrade >> Eglot to the very latest by deleting it from ~/.emacs.d/elpa and calling >> package-install, for example). This *is* a non-backward compatible >> change from the perspective of Eglot's maintainer. > > We were talking about users installing and updating packages. The CI > scenario doesn't belong here. It is also much less important one > (test suites are always required to chase the changes in development). > > Let's not complicate an already complicated set of issues by bringing > up unimportant secondary use cases. You asked. I relayed what's already been said on the matter by Joao. >> I, personally, don't really buy this kind of argument, but I figured you >> might. After all, it's rather in line with reasoning we've seen voiced >> around these parts many times ("X has worked this way for Y years, let's >> never change it from now on"). Classic https://xkcd.com/1172/. > > If you allude to my reasoning, then it is never that simplistic, and > always considers each case separately, not "by analogy". Of course that's a simplification. Hence the "might" anyway. >> Either way would be fine, IMO, as long as the behavior is logical and >> matches documentation. But having a separate command to upgrade now lets >> us fix it separately without worry of breaking something more globally. > > Except that, based on what we have (see below) ,we don't really have > an "upgrade" operation, we only have "install" and "delete" > (i.e. "uninstall"). So maybe we should preserve that, to minimize > problems and user surprise/confusion. We do. We have commands for upgrading, both in "list-packages", and used interactively. Which do the thing of installing the new version and removing the old one. Which is what upgrading means in various tools, e.g. 'apt'. >>> In interactive invocation, package-upgrade calls completing-read with >>> its 4th argument non-nil, so you cannot select a package which is not >>> in the collection returned by package--updateable-packages. What I >>> meant above is to allow that collection to include built-in packages >>> as optional behavior. I just tried invoking package-update for ElDoc, >>> and I get "No match" after typing "eldoc" to its prompt, although >>> eldoc version 1.14.0 is in the list presented by list-packages as >>> "available". >> >> That's what I imagined: adding a new optional argument to >> package--updateable-packages which would include builtins in the result. >> >> And only pass it when called from package-upgrade. >> >> Hopefully that's the kind of optional that you meant. > > Yes, something like that. Presumably activated by the same new option > introduced for package-installed. Okay, then it's something different, and you didn't answer my question. >>>>>> 'package-update' is an >>>>>> interactive function which itself it called from only one place: >>>>>> 'package-update-all', and since the plan is to improve both, we can make >>>>>> sure they only do what we ask of them: package-update will upgrade >>>>>> builtins when invoked directly, and package-update-all will upgrade them >>>>>> only when the builtin has been upgraded before (making it not a builtin >>>>>> anymore), or a new user option is set. >>>>> >>>>> This is one possibility, and it might make sense to some users. But I >>>>> don't think we can be sure it will make sense to an overwhelming >>>>> majority of the users. >>>> >>>> Hence the user option? >>> >>> Which one? Are you suggesting to add a new one? If so, why not use >>> the one we already added, package-install-upgrade-built-in? >> >> The user option I was thinking of would probably be called a little >> shorter: package-upgrade-built-in. And it would only affect the upgrader >> commands. > > We could rename the existing option, if the name is the problem. > Otherwise, I don't see why we would need two separate options: they do > the same job and have the same meaning from the user's POV. The name is a problem, yes. What could also be a problem is a user that customizes this option to have package-update update builtin packages (a reasonable behavior that should be on by default anyway), will also automatically have change the behavior of package-install to be more surprising (install an already installed package). Further, if we have a user option affect package-update, we'll have to alter package-update-all and package-manu-mark-for-update in the same patch (otherwise we'll have more nonsense on our hands). Whereas the first version I sent is more minimal. >> All this is to say, the first step (upgrading Eglot to the version from >> ELPA) will be less user-friendly compared to the other UIs we have. But >> it's probably manageable, especially if documented well. > > I don't see why it would be less user-friendly. The same reason we do have commands with "upgrade" in their names, rather than force everybody to use the "install" and "delete" ones. >> My point here, however, is that commit 580d8278c5f48 improved the >> situation to a lesser degree that some people here might have expected. > > One again: commit 580d8278c5f48 solved precisely the problem which > opened this bug report, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't seem like the originator of the report agrees with that. >> But we can conclude that we do have two different installation actions: >> >> - package-install which will install the latest version of a package, >> but only if it's not installed; >> - package-menu-mark-install, which will mark a specific version for >> installation, disregarding whether some earlier version is already >> installed; the previous version will remain installed still. > > Which is again a breaking behavior change, AFAIU. Is this a good idea > so late in the development of Emacs 29? The above is not a breaking change, it's how things work already. And have been working for quite a while. >> But even if we decide that we want to eliminate that split, doing *that* >> would really be a breaking change. I don't have a reasonable plan to >> present for doing that in Emacs 29, so far. > > There's no "split". What I wanted to point out is that we don't seem > to have a clear vision of these two commands, since they are confusing > intertwined. In fact, one could argue that package-upgrade in its > current form is simply a convenience shortcut for "delete old and > install new". What should an upgrade command do, in your opinion, if not "delete old and install new"? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 07:11:28 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 11:11:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41939 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqB9L-0004Yq-UW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:11:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33440) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqB9J-0004Yd-5N for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:11:26 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqB9D-0007yL-6s; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:11:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=L520qG/JRYh8QycXIVdPpjETkrdDQkAOGokHkEhYaFw=; b=OhEKxzi2vzx2 EhqQhJu1m3R345L3WQIfijqQLTZggBpjRGDDeAGuRsXnitGtLn82f3/Y/uvf5Y8g16PCGSMqeUacP 9Bx0rjzfQOd97cRrHjqlk4NnjnT4rWjY5kM6nRrrYEajAVmDjkyFwSjvNZGPn7XX1GJEszVktOujH Sxn7prQcpR6P8KQWIO49Law/PXCasvUgZkgHXLnLExXg8DqFfFoPZxvxmGt5UI/n51KIyWOoD3IGb 6b19Pd6IQmKbV004nmm0ruzoT57OSo27rqtjR8RM7gW7XG0lCuAW8y8JYhBFVd+f/h5LhzAdkbvll 8OfTlyddMaMOHzye+Ei2zw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqB9C-0006ZL-H3; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:11:18 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 14:11:36 +0300 Message-Id: <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:30:41 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:30:41 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > Thanks, but this is not what was being discussed, AFAIU. What I said > > I'd agree to is to have package-update accept a prefix argument and > > heed package-install-upgrade-built-in (perhaps renamed), > > I think I explained in the previous email why reusing > package-install-upgrade-built-in doesn't seem like a good idea. And I thought I've explained why I didn't see a need for another option. > > and only then > > update built-in packages. > > I asked what plausible scenario you think might be broken by having > package-update upgrade builtin package by default. That's obvious: this is how package-update behaved until now. > > I also don't think I like the significant changes in package-update, > > nor understand why they are needed. > > Like I said: the changes are to avoid relying on package-install being > able to install a package that's already installed. Which currently > works only for builtins and when only a user option is set. It's a mess. > > And to "avoid interdependency". Why does this have to be in Emacs 29? It's a cleanup, right? > Just to be clear, we are talking about the 4 lines at the end, right? Yes, and also the (somewhat mysterious) additions of tests for pkg-desc. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 07:20:06 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 11:20:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41945 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBHi-0004ld-0n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:20:06 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34874) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBHd-0004kz-Cr for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:20:05 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBHX-0001X6-8u; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:19:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=U7qOH+V0MC+UdKED3pS0QSrACzh51xjm9TL51CVtuUU=; b=LBWWDgywDTFm ut5fiwJaEviqS9/W1JXYjO91wduR1WZE/P80fbkXb8kq50XfcmeFMXyE2gwx1i6FlLVdzSr0n85Tr cTZVTN2/89Cn44xDMJxrr414qvawmCiMw4TFMoL8xd+rr5PtqrRLJ5MUB8RJnJBYcVQY/4ljppKEi /1oWdLT3eTXeTctMIT/h4JExLh5lOBu1Jf8Z09b/vwNC8SUdYcEDVMJfpm4metExy3v7iPEotZfDt BEIoz2BMiWVVzOd2IVel6u5dKfeoQzOcIXwoFiN99+pEhNnWlfCyblU/8yhXD8G4pyTdAhRbYpSmv t5EU5U9n02dNEgSY4d0zrA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBHW-0007J8-NS; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:19:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 14:20:12 +0300 Message-Id: <83h6t817v7.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:48:41 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <835y9o2uh2.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:48:41 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > >> The user option I was thinking of would probably be called a little > >> shorter: package-upgrade-built-in. And it would only affect the upgrader > >> commands. > > > > We could rename the existing option, if the name is the problem. > > Otherwise, I don't see why we would need two separate options: they do > > the same job and have the same meaning from the user's POV. > > The name is a problem, yes. What could also be a problem is a user that > customizes this option to have package-update update builtin packages (a > reasonable behavior that should be on by default anyway), will also > automatically have change the behavior of package-install to be more > surprising (install an already installed package). It's the same change in behavior, since for built-in packages "install" and "upgrade" is the same. > Further, if we have a user option affect package-update, we'll have to > alter package-update-all and package-manu-mark-for-update in the same > patch (otherwise we'll have more nonsense on our hands). Whereas the > first version I sent is more minimal. How is this relevant to whether we need one or two separate user options? > >> All this is to say, the first step (upgrading Eglot to the version from > >> ELPA) will be less user-friendly compared to the other UIs we have. But > >> it's probably manageable, especially if documented well. > > > > I don't see why it would be less user-friendly. > > The same reason we do have commands with "upgrade" in their names, > rather than force everybody to use the "install" and "delete" ones. I still don't think this is less user-friendly. > > One again: commit 580d8278c5f48 solved precisely the problem which > > opened this bug report, nothing more, nothing less. > > It doesn't seem like the originator of the report agrees with that. I'm aware of that. But you are talking to me, not to him, and the above is my opinion. I also agree that the solution is not ideal, just the best I could agree to. > >> - package-install which will install the latest version of a package, > >> but only if it's not installed; > >> - package-menu-mark-install, which will mark a specific version for > >> installation, disregarding whether some earlier version is already > >> installed; the previous version will remain installed still. > > > > Which is again a breaking behavior change, AFAIU. Is this a good idea > > so late in the development of Emacs 29? > > The above is not a breaking change, it's how things work already. And > have been working for quite a while. That's not what I understand. E.g., package-install will install even if the package is already installed. But if this already works, then why are you bringing this up? > >> But even if we decide that we want to eliminate that split, doing *that* > >> would really be a breaking change. I don't have a reasonable plan to > >> present for doing that in Emacs 29, so far. > > > > There's no "split". What I wanted to point out is that we don't seem > > to have a clear vision of these two commands, since they are confusing > > intertwined. In fact, one could argue that package-upgrade in its > > current form is simply a convenience shortcut for "delete old and > > install new". > > What should an upgrade command do, in your opinion, if not "delete old > and install new"? Why is this question important, in the context of the current discussion? It's a tangent. All I wanted to point out is that IMO there's no "split" that we want to eliminate. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 07:24:59 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 11:24:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41954 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBMQ-0004wt-U1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:24:59 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:37451) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBMO-0004we-Kh for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:24:57 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDD9582213; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:24:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:24:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682162691; x=1682166291; bh=dKOPEoXCo5wjuBqCzWu8jv71GpE2a+P3Y9e W4cXR2Bk=; b=HroloNQ54B3/zfV1kCfQnJ3JKcce+FAaBvEZ5dY/8Bd42YU6ZkM gaeIIu1lIkqiAfiMMxYeK/4Zp2VapI9CgdXoY72zjdaqyRs+WmzdC+12buPf/BgM WJXCN3Il0FYXICCVEYqF1EpSlhIil/ArqNuWuOpcW6EJD+4d9q6RbTDgVby3qN4M b2Kq42J/c45hQu4s881s81aCDJuD6+4A34pph23alUn2vlBr3pu/6fL1cCvimtK8 TW8qRSKqjVl9UTiEXRP0M+b0TtQH+g+bnlE7vKT7SGQY/8qlYTUvxFkna+AvzMD4 OQhB1JvyEBhc3lJ8n/2dgx5Z1AxwMoN3ZYA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682162691; x=1682166291; bh=dKOPEoXCo5wjuBqCzWu8jv71GpE2a+P3Y9e W4cXR2Bk=; b=WBDliKyN8WWsjN7gjJuIJ+IrLbYnuuO0Q9nPliG1uUugKPkWgs9 4ikalknzFNhhkXtWtECrRG4wbgJwsXWVCJy1640EAU+dtnFNhTVShKMfoNJY154F vtaL5w8NwOc9CorgNXoK7IqRlYNx9Ot3rl1yTjdxT7Th8jGB7vBpKEH8KrND4A8B 1bUlKhkB7W8O6LM6tf6qPt22rxUb2C4JcmM+kV3Xp45kobmX6LbFBlgBtnJ2UFCS iplc/bMhPIUaEAtAhU0m9Tn+WP++VtdEx+Nzrqa3+NJN9TAx8p9ranWPccCLrd0k W7IxWdiw6vRJ2nBiNH+RJRox8rWY7mM1BDg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtiedgfeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:24:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 14:24:47 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) On 22/04/2023 14:11, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:30:41 +0300 >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >>> Thanks, but this is not what was being discussed, AFAIU. What I said >>> I'd agree to is to have package-update accept a prefix argument and >>> heed package-install-upgrade-built-in (perhaps renamed), >> >> I think I explained in the previous email why reusing >> package-install-upgrade-built-in doesn't seem like a good idea. > > And I thought I've explained why I didn't see a need for another > option. I also don't see the point of using an option here. Also think forward to Emacs 30: I think the most reasonable choice would be to have package-update upgrade builtins by default, whereas package-update-all and package-menu-mark-for-upgrades probably still need to be preffed off (not sure, but we won't be able to make the choice until later, I think). But if to make package-update behave properly we need to flip the default of the said option, it will flip the behavior of package-update-all and package-menu-mark-for-upgrades as well. >>> and only then >>> update built-in packages. >> >> I asked what plausible scenario you think might be broken by having >> package-update upgrade builtin package by default. > > That's obvious: this is how package-update behaved until now. That's not an answer to the question. >>> I also don't think I like the significant changes in package-update, >>> nor understand why they are needed. >> >> Like I said: the changes are to avoid relying on package-install being >> able to install a package that's already installed. Which currently >> works only for builtins and when only a user option is set. It's a mess. >> >> And to "avoid interdependency". > > Why does this have to be in Emacs 29? It's a cleanup, right? Not a cleanup, no. If I just keep the previous version of the code, I get "package xxx is already installed". Because when upgrading a builtin package, the "current" version is not deleted. So we need to compute the exact version to install (then package-install does not say "it's already installed" because the installed version is different). The use of package-install-from-archive might have been a mistake, though, (in case dependencies need to be updated too) I'm looking into that now. Alternatively, we could add an optional argument to package-install which would mean "install the latest version anyway". >> Just to be clear, we are talking about the 4 lines at the end, right? > > Yes, and also the (somewhat mysterious) additions of tests for > pkg-desc. pkg-desc is nil for builtin packages in this case (they are not in package-alist, so (assq package package-alist) returns nil). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 07:30:05 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 11:30:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41970 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBRN-0005Ek-02 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:30:05 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:58879) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBRD-00054a-Ov for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:30:03 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0ACA5800D7; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:29:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:29:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1682162990; x=1682166590; bh=xj ereVZHej/NYQ0AlQlpwZqpQftts1INGvACE3xL538=; b=JHGdPc63/F84eBdMP8 FdNxhlD1EanrlIA/H6Rjbosq8OC8xs2TZbew6AgGVR6iPuzHrxScLe3L5YELqqcH hLhJoA57SNQra7QEO6/s5y+zJWB0m/TnMgCqX1sinCrwMAI1QKEFnYuUVO2z4xSS Nzj0S/A/mT08sEu3li3Q26UZKutiiAiEOpOOwW417fEeRUPWGyYAlKNVUP72AlT6 l0uQegD3Aoxgav3A+MMwBZktq1aX8IG96bGVH4FBzkUGjrl0wNAngj+yNc0VPvvW Bm7q+HOEbOwoAp6gVVvnWkDQImzo9a10GcHwa2bgNeq6HvvTn0GDjlYj9+4I9Hia xFJw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1682162990; x=1682166590; bh=xjereVZHej/NY Q0AlQlpwZqpQftts1INGvACE3xL538=; b=ZeSU+VxO4tRo6Z4jpMP9YaRfFhfUb +VFdfB17c9eAF94s9GnKFobbTfxbXaPY0lb8lGfVhSmO9m7UvdJpmFlZrAH8x5t/ kX43dRUAm1my3EM6sugR0NPiZWm4tSxgi9G1FssnuiI57IP3A1hvTBw0xY10/UOs WWX7JRWiExEruxzli+TnK9pdrCOnc1ztk0x2vRGyrk8KKEHmNrvpClYzZA+7+5d0 OxZRAeav3Wg6EopoQmP3BPDs0PrJ0W5rLrJfUkfh5NVXwOl3S5ONq4y1amSAIz0W FhkpImMuK6NzK9rz2+yPlAv+1X906dJJVG+znxD7JmOGW/dNCl/yGnulg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtiedgfeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptgfkffggfgfuhffvvehfjgesmhdtreertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhmihht rhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeeiheegkeetgffghefhgeeiveeuudegvdeuteffhfettdelleehkeffledvuddt leenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegumh hithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:29:47 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------JENPTsif7QB50HM0pebi3iik" Message-ID: <05c66d00-d105-3367-02fe-7d337126cbb6@gutov.dev> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 14:29:46 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US From: Dmitry Gutov To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------JENPTsif7QB50HM0pebi3iik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 22/04/2023 14:24, Dmitry Gutov wrote: >>>> I also don't think I like the significant changes in package-update, >>>> nor understand why they are needed. >>> >>> Like I said: the changes are to avoid relying on package-install being >>> able to install a package that's already installed. Which currently >>> works only for builtins and when only a user option is set. It's a mess. >>> >>> And to "avoid interdependency". >> >> Why does this have to be in Emacs 29?  It's a cleanup, right? > > Not a cleanup, no. If I just keep the previous version of the code, I > get "package xxx is already installed". Because when upgrading a builtin > package, the "current" version is not deleted. > > So we need to compute the exact version to install (then package-install > does not say "it's already installed" because the installed version is > different). The use of package-install-from-archive might have been a > mistake, though, (in case dependencies need to be updated too) I'm > looking into that now. Here's an updated patch that's a little closer to what's been there before. > Alternatively, we could add an optional argument to package-install > which would mean "install the latest version anyway". --------------JENPTsif7QB50HM0pebi3iik Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name="package-update-fix.diff" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="package-update-fix.diff" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL2xpc3AvZW1hY3MtbGlzcC9wYWNrYWdlLmVsIGIvbGlzcC9lbWFjcy1s aXNwL3BhY2thZ2UuZWwKaW5kZXggZmZhNjI3MmRkMWYuLmY5YWQ4M2Q3NjUwIDEwMDY0NAot LS0gYS9saXNwL2VtYWNzLWxpc3AvcGFja2FnZS5lbAorKysgYi9saXNwL2VtYWNzLWxpc3Av cGFja2FnZS5lbApAQCAtMjI3MCwxNyArMjI3MCwyMiBAQCBwYWNrYWdlLXVwZGF0ZQogICAi VXBkYXRlIHBhY2thZ2UgTkFNRSBpZiBhIG5ld2VyIHZlcnNpb24gZXhpc3RzLiIKICAgKGlu dGVyYWN0aXZlCiAgICAobGlzdCAoY29tcGxldGluZy1yZWFkCi0gICAgICAgICAgIlVwZGF0 ZSBwYWNrYWdlOiAiIChwYWNrYWdlLS11cGRhdGVhYmxlLXBhY2thZ2VzKSBuaWwgdCkpKQor ICAgICAgICAgICJVcGRhdGUgcGFja2FnZTogIiAocGFja2FnZS0tdXBkYXRlYWJsZS1wYWNr YWdlcyB0KSBuaWwgdCkpKQogICAobGV0KiAoKHBhY2thZ2UgKGlmIChzeW1ib2xwIG5hbWUp CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgbmFtZQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAoaW50 ZXJuIG5hbWUpKSkKICAgICAgICAgIChwa2ctZGVzYyAoY2FkciAoYXNzcSBwYWNrYWdlIHBh Y2thZ2UtYWxpc3QpKSkpCi0gICAgKGlmIChwYWNrYWdlLXZjLXAgcGtnLWRlc2MpCisgICAg KGlmIChhbmQgcGtnLWRlc2MgKHBhY2thZ2UtdmMtcCBwa2ctZGVzYykpCiAgICAgICAgIChw YWNrYWdlLXZjLXVwZGF0ZSBwa2ctZGVzYykKLSAgICAgIChwYWNrYWdlLWRlbGV0ZSBwa2ct ZGVzYyAnZm9yY2UpCi0gICAgICAocGFja2FnZS1pbnN0YWxsIHBhY2thZ2UgJ2RvbnQtc2Vs ZWN0KSkpKQotCi0oZGVmdW4gcGFja2FnZS0tdXBkYXRlYWJsZS1wYWNrYWdlcyAoKQorICAg ICAgKHdoZW4gcGtnLWRlc2MKKyAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtZGVsZXRlIHBrZy1kZXNjICdm b3JjZSkpCisgICAgICAocGFja2FnZS1pbnN0YWxsCisgICAgICAgKGNhciAobGFzdCAoc2Vx LXNvcnQtYnkgIydwYWNrYWdlLWRlc2MtcHJpb3JpdHktdmVyc2lvbgorICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICMndmVyc2lvbi1saXN0LTwKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAoY2RyIChhc3NxIHBhY2thZ2UgcGFja2FnZS1hcmNoaXZlLWNvbnRl bnRzKSkpKSkKKyAgICAgICAnZG9udC1zZWxlY3QpKSkpCisKKyhkZWZ1biBwYWNrYWdlLS11 cGRhdGVhYmxlLXBhY2thZ2VzICgmb3B0aW9uYWwgYWxsb3ctYnVpbHRpbnMpCiAgIDs7IElu aXRpYWxpemUgdGhlIHBhY2thZ2Ugc3lzdGVtIHRvIGdldCB0aGUgbGlzdCBvZiBwYWNrYWdl CiAgIDs7IHN5bWJvbHMgZm9yIGNvbXBsZXRpb24uCiAgIChwYWNrYWdlLS1hcmNoaXZlcy1p bml0aWFsaXplKQpAQCAtMjI5MSwxMSArMjI5NiwyMSBAQCBwYWNrYWdlLS11cGRhdGVhYmxl LXBhY2thZ2VzCiAgICAgICAob3IgKGxldCAoKGF2YWlsYWJsZQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAoYXNzcSAoY2FyIGVsdCkgcGFja2FnZS1hcmNoaXZlLWNvbnRlbnRzKSkpCiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAoYW5kIGF2YWlsYWJsZQotICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAodmVyc2lvbi1saXN0LTwK LSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChwYWNrYWdlLWRlc2MtdmVyc2lvbiAoY2FkciBlbHQpKQot ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtZGVzYy12ZXJzaW9uIChjYWRyIGF2YWlsYWJs ZSkpKSkpCi0gICAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtdmMtcCAoY2FkciAoYXNzcSAoY2FyIGVsdCkg cGFja2FnZS1hbGlzdCkpKSkpCi0gICAgcGFja2FnZS1hbGlzdCkpKQorICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAob3IgKGFuZAorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGFsbG93LWJ1aWx0aW5zCisg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKG5vdCAocGFja2FnZS1kZXNjLXZlcnNpb24gKGNhZHIg ZWx0KSkpKQorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKHZlcnNpb24tbGlzdC08CisgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtZGVzYy12ZXJzaW9uIChjYWRyIGVsdCkpCisgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtZGVzYy12ZXJzaW9uIChjYWRyIGF2YWlsYWJs ZSkpKSkpKQorICAgICAgICAgIChwYWNrYWdlLXZjLXAgKGNhZHIgZWx0KSkpKQorICAgIChp ZiBhbGxvdy1idWlsdGlucworICAgICAgICAoYXBwZW5kIHBhY2thZ2UtYWxpc3QKKyAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAobWFwY2FuCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChsYW1iZGEgKGVsdCkKKyAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAod2hlbiAobm90IChhc3NxIChjYXIgZWx0KSBwYWNrYWdlLWFs aXN0KSkKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChsaXN0IChsaXN0IChjYXIgZWx0KSAocGFj a2FnZS0tZnJvbS1idWlsdGluIGVsdCkpKSkpCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHBhY2thZ2Ut LWJ1aWx0aW5zKSkKKyAgICAgIHBhY2thZ2UtYWxpc3QpKSkpCiAKIDs7OyMjI2F1dG9sb2Fk CiAoZGVmdW4gcGFja2FnZS11cGRhdGUtYWxsICgmb3B0aW9uYWwgcXVlcnkpCg== --------------JENPTsif7QB50HM0pebi3iik-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 07:39:11 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 11:39:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41993 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBaA-0007kv-Ib for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:39:10 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:43483) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBa9-0007kk-K2 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:39:10 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7014B58219D; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:39:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:39:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682163544; x=1682167144; bh=0Qt8PNKXXOxQ0A1mWk2H5Q0MGa3x3EJhMrx NwBiUG3c=; b=G/Tps/ixZ2ZQed1R2I9SRKI5wG7J41BUXtuRkrtPYqFIexLx4HJ l981OFW0zy+58iSXPY76nQkP83/3Sp4kWf4rtM8q23I6TxYEfd3v8Fe22ekYpZH9 YutwE1O4DXu+9xUw8gcpg2CD2iu6IBr4lasobhHo8u4S/H0G/HE7lcHOScuDEQTK xoDybvomCo/kLHupBY/W1Z/Jn+MtfL8a76GRjfPxQL4KPW9n2WOljlX5Cz+UPKtX HGKO5MSE1DBpYuYK2JV3eo8zkTapWfU0iQ/CgDzgTYU7f5gaXOv5/i4Pt+MuT7B5 mGHuUCNmOM9K5Ro6q46W8gJOj4SgQ+az7hQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682163544; x=1682167144; bh=0Qt8PNKXXOxQ0A1mWk2H5Q0MGa3x3EJhMrx NwBiUG3c=; b=GhgPEwrBpvY+hjtJ6cToNTolO3OwocvPky9T2adPGaxAUKzmrnl cTqfWZlvw2PbkCWUy7ifycmvKehHE96GMLogoP5QGc+EpjyRxAix6oMClMKowHID dRXUgAkmF2e1GSMQMSaQFiohfceMG8ZbgizO3YM1eCNCG7MQTB8MUfhdVtySxzJ5 JfjGp04JOMPmH8YMv2mrzAHS8bOzyo59rDPsv4nr5M8j4t0U6DfF4v/3QLVr+3pn hRuBRZdowvcrffluRi82azBRtWeo2lOrE9IGihVBZslG82EVfGHadxrA1D6Jw9D8 FwPI+UfIW2bNYVGIbV1YdNw2Y4KW58Vjnwg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtiedggeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:39:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <624a26af-0c96-8d48-129f-79bc6a547ede@gutov.dev> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 14:38:59 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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: -2.9 (--) On 22/04/2023 03:57, João Távora wrote: > Then there are the things I can't change, like users trying out > a new init.el file, a very common operation -- be it for bug > reproduction or just to try something out. Also note that > package-delete + package-install interactively is a pretty good way > to update packages in Emacs 28: no need to nuke the home directory. It's as good a workaround for ignorance as any, but if we think it's okay for a user to do that (a relatively large manual operation), perhaps we can guide them to do a 'package-install' from list-packages instead. But the difference from Emacs 28 is indeed unfortunate, no argument there. Or if the new option stays around, I guess you could be recommending they customize it first? > If you "dont buy this", that's OK :-) I'm not trying to sell it to you > specifically. I don't think we'll have torches and pitchforks either, > but we're not really talking about "spacebar overheating" here. > > Note that I also don't really buy, personally, the "furtive update of > :core packages" argument either. My reasoning is that that cat has > been out of the bag for a long long, just because of dependencies which > are absolutely liberally by package.el and the fact tha I've never seen > a bug reported about this. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but this part seems to be worth treating conservatively, I think. This close to release, etc. We might as well switch to the "update all the cores!" model later, but hopefully by that time we have a good CI setup that tests the compatibility of all core packages with all Emacs versions they are supposed to support. > I buy even less that people using M-x package-update in Emacs 29 > don't want to update :core packages just because it doesn't do > that right now. For me, it's obvious people weren't using to > update :core packages because that command lived in master > for the large part of its short life and in master :core packages > don't need any updating, by definition. But of course fact that I > don't buy it shouldn't mean that it should be disregarded (and > noone is advocating for that). This one I'm trying to fix, currently. > The last two patches I provided aim to aid Eglot users (lightly, > as you've discovered, since the use-package use case is not well > covered in the first one, and there's still the error behaviour > to ponde). But, more importantly they are designed so that no > cats that weren't previously out of the bag make it outside > the bag Do you prefer that package-install-upgrade-built-in (together with the behavior of package-install it enables) stays around? One possible alternative I mentioned, is package-install could grow another programmatic parameter which would mean "install the very latest version". The users will then need to evaluate (package-install 'eglot nil t) for that to happen. Also a breaking change in instructions, though, since in Emacs 28 this will error. Another gotcha with the latter, is that if some version from ELPA is already installed, they will get two versions installed as a result. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 08:00:31 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 12:00:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42036 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBuo-00006U-E3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:00:30 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55138) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBuk-00006A-1I for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:00:29 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBud-0000Id-1n; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:00:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=AtvhxLXieG7R0H7vhHVUuuMclZ21rNj7L/ml320lUEU=; b=nTX4omuL+1wS DpNZu6Erg/fiOzU0g3hYVZwOxEEH9/4X3aTfDfEOPT/eBV/5vaplAdZ0iOdz9JB8o5ih32LoTQHj0 s0jHWNrxHiXOrOdmP5SO3CpHdmliVrr8Wwk6nkQwRkjW9jJJiej8hrYVEsHi5qNpR3054CbcpDVaw 8rZ8QVYwimBYWUzPJHqD6VMBDktCuZb6RMTwZXLI+p0hwPRZlrNMtpOXZ9IDqLmPU34HYlDECgMnZ MxgqBViMiJ9jOcVoPp9OJFkhIAR9+RADZoRX9q8wLzQg4BZDrmvEpCs6a4QPUdsdbbK9y8jBwUD6Z 9eNncrOTTozGqgd1Q16p2g==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBuV-0005ng-FR; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:00:17 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:00:29 +0300 Message-Id: <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 22 Apr 2023 14:24:47 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 14:24:47 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 22/04/2023 14:11, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:30:41 +0300 > >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > >> joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > >> From: Dmitry Gutov > >> > >>> Thanks, but this is not what was being discussed, AFAIU. What I said > >>> I'd agree to is to have package-update accept a prefix argument and > >>> heed package-install-upgrade-built-in (perhaps renamed), > >> > >> I think I explained in the previous email why reusing > >> package-install-upgrade-built-in doesn't seem like a good idea. > > > > And I thought I've explained why I didn't see a need for another > > option. > > I also don't see the point of using an option here. We must not change past behavior unconditionally and by default, not this close to the release. > Also think forward to Emacs 30: I think the most reasonable choice would > be to have package-update upgrade builtins by default, whereas > package-update-all and package-menu-mark-for-upgrades probably still > need to be preffed off (not sure, but we won't be able to make the > choice until later, I think). I don't see why package-update and package-update-all should behave differently wrt core packages. If the user expresses his/her will to update core packages, then package-update-all should do this for all of them. > But if to make package-update behave properly we need to flip the > default of the said option, it will flip the behavior of > package-update-all and package-menu-mark-for-upgrades as well. Which is how it should be, IMO. > >>> and only then > >>> update built-in packages. > >> > >> I asked what plausible scenario you think might be broken by having > >> package-update upgrade builtin package by default. > > > > That's obvious: this is how package-update behaved until now. > > That's not an answer to the question. It is for me (and I'm quite surprised that it is not for you). > >>> I also don't think I like the significant changes in package-update, > >>> nor understand why they are needed. > >> > >> Like I said: the changes are to avoid relying on package-install being > >> able to install a package that's already installed. Which currently > >> works only for builtins and when only a user option is set. It's a mess. > >> > >> And to "avoid interdependency". > > > > Why does this have to be in Emacs 29? It's a cleanup, right? > > Not a cleanup, no. If I just keep the previous version of the code, I > get "package xxx is already installed". Because when upgrading a builtin > package, the "current" version is not deleted. > > So we need to compute the exact version to install (then package-install > does not say "it's already installed" because the installed version is > different). The use of package-install-from-archive might have been a > mistake, though, (in case dependencies need to be updated too) I'm > looking into that now. With prefix argument, or when package-update-built-in is non-nil, the behavior of package-install is different. So just use this, instead of changing the code of package-update. > Alternatively, we could add an optional argument to package-install > which would mean "install the latest version anyway". There is already such an option, added as part of fixing this bug. > >> Just to be clear, we are talking about the 4 lines at the end, right? > > > > Yes, and also the (somewhat mysterious) additions of tests for > > pkg-desc. > > pkg-desc is nil for builtin packages in this case (they are not in > package-alist, so (assq package package-alist) returns nil). This should either be commented, or a variable with a telltale name added to reflect this subtlety. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 08:01:32 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 12:01:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42041 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBvo-00008h-21 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:01:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50026) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBvm-00008R-P3 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:01:31 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBvg-0000S8-Rm; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:01:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=8RvCBfU3mJpvn/8bTw9uS7giJF5MBuJS/9GryqpuXeE=; b=FB5FAxG9ri/O dVNNoOoVRs3ZRbrN/kvP640aQoRk6ahq8e1g5lum3/7szwPx4kPu44ROzWfDhOMKacD79lxFkHqjo Nt3L6BaOtRVLLb04OlxM6y88zrcNGZiNLLORbsWUACflFjR7UQa9FU38KqsqzvcABPMTdTPj8NwnH 5F732Grl6QG1FP9sPByOGiao1gTdL/6SYtYJ7R3WaWw5ICtwbaL5bWf271XacjHm3axY3JrJ6MdvP qYR0unjIL1MZ6wW7dBZ31nVRD7g5feeBfJA1JR8LCl88jyNFkbhMPri3d6IMQrOqAWFrVHRNof4mK 96e862jFOonntneUGNV7FA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBvg-0002wR-30; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:01:24 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:01:42 +0300 Message-Id: <83cz3w15y1.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <05c66d00-d105-3367-02fe-7d337126cbb6@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 22 Apr 2023 14:29:46 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <05c66d00-d105-3367-02fe-7d337126cbb6@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 14:29:46 +0300 > From: Dmitry Gutov > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > Here's an updated patch that's a little closer to what's been there before. I suggest not to rush with posting patches until we agree about what the modified code should do. I would like to minimize the waste of your time. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 08:12:59 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 12:12:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42046 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqC6t-0000Qc-Cc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:12:59 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f180.google.com ([209.85.167.180]:60778) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqC6q-0000QN-MQ for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:12:58 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f180.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-38c35975545so2185115b6e.1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 05:12:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682165570; x=1684757570; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=XeVTrKkeUf1o6ruG9AIo+Uon/7w98kCHvtXsgP2HOG0=; b=qJ88/ERiwCFC5CkIqGo8RICOeN13I74V+hqRW7qVBb1a/9xYqCdgS33YzFFiJwUZFq dypvkWecvYVYz/NJTliiUjNjU/2LpPzmlt7q/BKn0Bz1B/+Vv2mQq/rRMl891jKZ1CoR gKWqT7psrg7BdtyZ2Cu4wiRkJmGFLXeqcpxbITydvN0fsM85L6gCjAL6Jw2M0pfGrlfi 2EYrh4BKISLpWYeSMD1v7aXe+cU4Iaknd3gVf7v02Dvk+8U+JB3Tug/BXSttr7GqLKU6 ZAd0tgE16LROi8P+JgekLlTQyKBZANW0gQ5X271tRtkkKhgSnCO4pP6qSlV9lfVxYQjX 7gfw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682165570; x=1684757570; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XeVTrKkeUf1o6ruG9AIo+Uon/7w98kCHvtXsgP2HOG0=; b=AJWOyHpDlCw+AZi5/SLjgRHIOXiGslSUL31o9nXIO8LbQNWO5xASNJhCUGLql53mPM llxAKtcpaPR/wwn/6H0oNYYDYlkTwZXpzaVy7b+fdZeYM5CPuifxAkPyBH98kZPfSvNP zwgVXjHpfToD7nz09VV8R6+Lrn4bEYxxDefYvLtoCxarNAGNlRvmKiS1TDtQyNzoxqEu wJoJKItNnbFQ8RzlIl07l+cs64UOmAVb8H9LoHsDchnOHkmMHneR+H7FLqBHydni8kPD 3RRqcoMLbPV7JW2z6mDvejEXDkKzEomdlekZlwtIGPp/kroohyjfe2m2nmzzKF57z3jk U+fw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9flFxnJm8UG8b58IlTgQf/QmKs2Uh3j+l3aNJSqsCeE0p/kJXZ2 8+0emK8Aa4oKSiDBp3dQSYJT5DdshP78rxDVTlk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZkDyE2nYS09ryh1E+XYvpU5aPndbu0I8NtF7tBth+f0cVPohn4WMi+U9VxSGWJd2cV4iTFbRzu6SQ2FGQOKpI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1383:b0:38b:4214:94f3 with SMTP id c3-20020a056808138300b0038b421494f3mr5414779oiw.24.1682165570616; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 05:12:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <624a26af-0c96-8d48-129f-79bc6a547ede@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <624a26af-0c96-8d48-129f-79bc6a547ede@gutov.dev> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:12:39 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:39=E2=80=AFPM Dmitry Gutov wr= ote: > > But the difference from Emacs 28 is indeed unfortunate, no argument there= . > > Or if the new option stays around, I guess you could be recommending > they customize it first? No idea yet. I'm leaning eglot-update as it guaranteedly the most consistent. That or straight.el or elpaca.el. Or no recommendation whatsoever. I just got my first bug report about a user where I can't tell the version of Eglot being used but which is consistent with an older version being used, perhaps unknowingly. This is, of course, not unheard of, so let's see. > We might as well switch to the "update all the cores!" model later, but > hopefully by that time we have a good CI setup that tests the > compatibility of all core packages with all Emacs versions they are > supposed to support. Right, that makes sense. If it helps, Eglot's CI has been doing that for year now. It tests Eglot -- and its up-to-date dependencies -- in Emacs 26, 27 and 28. It's not very complex to set up. > Do you prefer that package-install-upgrade-built-in (together with the > behavior of package-install it enables) stays around? No, my opinion is that I find this user unfriendly, and of course even more so with the default value. I've already answered this early on in the thread. Creating customization points as a "cure" for haphazard design is not a good practice. It's like there are two package managers in Emacs. The package menu and the package-install. The "upgrade :core" cat has always been out of the bag in the first one fully, and in the second almost fully. And then there's the third "package manager", i.e. use-package's specific package-install behaviour. And nwo there is package-update which is almost a newborn, but is already inexplicably broken. Putting more customization variables into the mix is just adding variations to a very crowded field, more questions to ask, more fear-uncertainty-doubt. The "update all cores" is frankly the safest model IMO. Of course, I understand that others disagree -- and I even see their well. So knowing emacs-devel, I don't have any illusions. But I suspect they see this "update all cores" idea as some kind of gargantuan jump from what is in Emacs 28, when in reality it's not (again, because dependencies). And I also tend to think they disagree because they haven't been working with this and with users for as long as I have (and you have), so from afar it seems dangerous. Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 08:14:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 12:14:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42051 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqC84-0000T0-Rz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:14:13 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:57343) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqC82-0000Sm-FG for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:14:11 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68622581F6A; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:14:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682165645; x=1682169245; bh=8spOAEuaPKFIiSoH50TZWilE2rY/kcXzOYw eKupwsec=; b=y1NpMzlVu2mX21trZOe/HRK/zzU+WoYUDjZCgVzwLV43KENX8cf 2JX3+0FI6VZZ2ek89FqmeI+eT4xv8gspjymiJEJ0l3iYM1hs/luutoLklb4h07a2 J1ishqkk05yL2WqO0Ge9QjeKFr6FrLLLss8HAdc5ObS/8zmLXYgF+ZyKa3f2JYrb XtVElpx7w+lRsBZwfjBdJFGma3HSIzzwERsVlfCLTjerKsni+LT2cCzNJcEcBfk8 2PCOs20znvEfa/sIgX5D6ZpYzyedbBH36Pg7ddxwfS/A8+177xsU6iwd/Yo26k2W DOXRjeHmYhw0Ev3zcUpYZeXCa336YGGfsbg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682165645; x=1682169245; bh=8spOAEuaPKFIiSoH50TZWilE2rY/kcXzOYw eKupwsec=; b=T//DLjp/1Y4TRTs7Xw/Vt7b2mCM0wmoNM7CLnMaU4Hf2E9qi0t8 vSoTdlZACDb+xPfy4aAEO+9ms9sIitpMetaKseeAIlDqgrpw/3kje6HuYShh7Xid YhWO3M4809Ekb3XViA19H5Ia4ODrH0IjlYLlpg2Y6wCfNxL0tdz+1R7/7U6MUFRC wyh3g9N9uk2Roo2M4wfRB7S5Vf8oU76pnhp1JsubmQlc1059oxOMWi55JbplcAEp e7PUAbbbN+Z4Ync0Hsa1d5OGfsJQCPOYvxrZGT/ZlDZMmYXi8dCBPO3ognrNJjdH iy2RXhtb3s2TQ2nHgaQ3qYqttnO8Ec2h/HQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtiedggeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <79b17d02-5f95-43cc-ed5b-dfa7618b6f21@gutov.dev> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:14:01 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) On 22/04/2023 15:00, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Also think forward to Emacs 30: I think the most reasonable choice would >> be to have package-update upgrade builtins by default, whereas >> package-update-all and package-menu-mark-for-upgrades probably still >> need to be preffed off (not sure, but we won't be able to make the >> choice until later, I think). > I don't see why package-update and package-update-all should behave > differently wrt core packages. If the user expresses his/her will to > update core packages, then package-update-all should do this for all > of them. The idea is that if the user invokes 'M-x package-update' interactively and inputs the name of the package, they express their intention to update said package this way. Whether it's core or not. With package-update-all or package-menu-mark-for-update, the user does not have a chance to specify which of the core packages they want to upgrade, if any. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 08:24:03 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 12:24:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42058 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqCHa-0000jE-Un for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:24:03 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:48952) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqCHX-0000ih-TP for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:24:01 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqCHQ-0004pW-PQ; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:23:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=kMPxDQxf2+W1paVKy9D9SGWdxS4OY7fg9SlbbmTttPk=; b=Z6Z7AE5LWIjP wDSqhSYo/5APTlH+oTRHyTLXP0Zy9xjtec/Q2cTYXV+3Yh2k54UZHXiQhcTnlzejAwjWnEqTIQHpP 0W8pz2Kr6KoAGM9xAkmjCDfM+CtKnkmd8g1d90pH0NLimysXJQCweGHmCu9eKu/8NsjGnPBN/Ia3C asWAsqcZanP7DA2Qsuj8ABfkOy1hMQRwSQzxHQ4iyD/5y8ffgKkcWCGlOnY62TDTSRK9uMficuima MUcyJcXiUaWLDrjcshfzN1cQ7dKFt9pPw3mqCBTvKQcfVNuibCH6qChp44X9miC4jvwLiWV25sIc5 PnMRfPiqZzOyXYbVqLOiiA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqCHP-000598-Uf; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:23:52 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:24:10 +0300 Message-Id: <83a5z014wl.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <79b17d02-5f95-43cc-ed5b-dfa7618b6f21@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:14:01 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <79b17d02-5f95-43cc-ed5b-dfa7618b6f21@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:14:01 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 22/04/2023 15:00, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Also think forward to Emacs 30: I think the most reasonable choice would > >> be to have package-update upgrade builtins by default, whereas > >> package-update-all and package-menu-mark-for-upgrades probably still > >> need to be preffed off (not sure, but we won't be able to make the > >> choice until later, I think). > > I don't see why package-update and package-update-all should behave > > differently wrt core packages. If the user expresses his/her will to > > update core packages, then package-update-all should do this for all > > of them. > > The idea is that if the user invokes 'M-x package-update' interactively > and inputs the name of the package, they express their intention to > update said package this way. Whether it's core or not. > > With package-update-all or package-menu-mark-for-update, the user does > not have a chance to specify which of the core packages they want to > upgrade, if any. That's why we should have both the prefix-arg and the user option: one is for one-off update of a single package, the other for updating many of them. It's the same logic as for package-install in those cases. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 19:38:02 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 23:38:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44312 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqMnq-0006Oo-E0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:38:02 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:36265) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqMnn-0006OK-M8 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:38:01 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF53581DA6; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:37:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682206674; x=1682210274; bh=SZjpqwtn9fBRStksrQ5r+NoMMdm5oL4RKLT 2UbfUSPU=; b=ousCGqtyS1smzUtPFOe5iQmPQx4c8jrB7MStc7k4wHi92zlcQGG BglM00Erl+jLHFW1RVothBE5/oSXbya+5THkgFciWpsJiHank9Li17ZwHB3+XzCE nEzI/kY+oS/MRaAP3LiFrCIfCIMPLIYXW8L0ltXsqErZZJB0c0N7NMDTguSZtSNa CtUoytf3+s43a0nUY5KQ+IYk9YFnLotavgwyCW7YeOWNde92PkzqZa7teSdq2hvY HTWwMQFPV2qQFcOR8qKWQ3kSUSU7bIK8i93XgwXWDKNB1jsUjOXph5wEwLusD71l 8fl8NBPUpBpKbq8Yd3q5J2YT4WX2280Bd3Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682206674; x=1682210274; bh=SZjpqwtn9fBRStksrQ5r+NoMMdm5oL4RKLT 2UbfUSPU=; b=IvsGCWaT+GNQf5wKTqOOht+1ynzOXDTiBP+TaAuSdF822cGdVUJ eB9v8dWRbowBks3nd7cLuzDch5Yo4brn9xIy2gmfWIYnG9zDCvsB09fzFAO//Iuc TLSaZCm9mD1wRJ3W29h2RrJZPJ4EE/Ahuu3/CxzmFk+xoEwTVLkAXNEbkGYkgR3T FZtt9wMUCzvmoI84QJNU12+2muOMkvbi5OATD1f9/EYxVfMY34j0eHMutBuiGbrd eUSCDrR1+DhiejV4G/c3MI367T0uhmIxo6r8Ue7Ml+nA2ZfDGVEdUWV38sxL2I2M QJ8jzJPiUeAsh4VLiGl+rwoxFAVCYLcpERg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtjedgvdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:37:50 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) Philip, On 13/04/2023 21:49, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > + (when (and (or current-prefix-arg package-install-upgrade-built-in) > + (package--active-built-in-p pkg)) > + (setq pkg (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) How sure are you that the first element in (cdr (assq name package-archive-contents)) will contain the latest version? When reading the code I stumbled on these two items: - Comment in package-compute-transaction: ;; pkg-descs is sorted by priority, not version, so ;; don't error just yet. - package-menu--find-upgrades iterates through installed packages and checks for new versions with this condition: (version-list-< (package-desc-priority-version pkg-desc) (package-desc-priority-version avail-pkg)) That's why I came with the more complex way to choose the appropriate package-desc in my latest attempt: (car (last (seq-sort-by #'package-desc-priority-version #'version-list-< (cdr (assq package package-archive-contents))))) Would be happy to hear it's an overkill and we can use the more simple version. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 19:46:17 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 23:46:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44317 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqMvo-0006as-Eg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:46:16 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:39833) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqMvn-0006ag-8S for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:46:15 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C22582041; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:46:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1682207170; x=1682210770; bh=nn NrJMQfAeRNWF/ddmXQiQNbpZaAiDPzI5xpqCPDEcM=; b=U48QdJm0Q09Shve2Yf 7rXcDa7hSy5gK3ikKPkz1KYPd744+z8lrdBHM7SUKkn+35a8wwz+6CLiZkE4FVSP 0zDkJ7oRyiIbqEo/j5EI/VPlL5URVqGxt2YVysYdNoV8zxw6R5cJIEqAgN6T3suo A3pNf5QNzM9HQnPZ4d2kY3GvanUbITyma9SN0i6Qts/b8RJ7XC+roJciJFupJspn qyA5/64t/1o38l2C4NqHee2mqoCEC4j/QWk6F/KJ3fKKcZTihsIvytQvzWMrbMcx 56+Z5StUtBOtC2EiAfPL0zHjh8fVqFGNL/p4NvC0/+9FKDpGZxas4KhEYat0bIKT aQhw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1682207170; x=1682210770; bh=nnNrJMQfAeRNW F/ddmXQiQNbpZaAiDPzI5xpqCPDEcM=; b=jMtB1vQAFKgdfk2w57eqDAldNjH4d AGjdl/fjLME/JyQk6a8xt/m4nHsZlUEt6yKbbVH2NkheSLCUGOJDN0Min+35FfnO 7nPc/z4zgvQmJP+m8ymNpl9ZB5VAyqxHkgEwi1qB+JetgX9Ox8P5LKwn0XtRip2P kPS3bdZqBkSf5evEwj3EzWtf2UZ9aL/lZuPiAZH7MwYXpPOWybcZxluZ7kqRBfRJ 9jUPhmrKrk6S4aekF3vUrOYEWj/34ARE4q355IL1z3MdXpM9Zp8lg3GrG59oMre3 +bbWlNjZ2F8hsIqyQqgqvruIK9CQNUc8WdvqQsD8o48st07d+A7G917DA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtjedgvdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptgfkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjgesmhdtreertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhmihht rhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeehteekgfetieeujeeuvddtvdelteffleejteduvdefffejieehheeuteffveei jeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegumh hithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------9C9rN0NlB8Hpl5ZHrJYPc2Z2" Message-ID: <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:46:05 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------9C9rN0NlB8Hpl5ZHrJYPc2Z2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 22/04/2023 15:00, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> I think I explained in the previous email why reusing >>>> package-install-upgrade-built-in doesn't seem like a good idea. >>> >>> And I thought I've explained why I didn't see a need for another >>> option. >> >> I also don't see the point of using an option here. > > We must not change past behavior unconditionally and by default, not > this close to the release. We're still allowed bugfixing, I believe. >>>>> and only then >>>>> update built-in packages. >>>> >>>> I asked what plausible scenario you think might be broken by having >>>> package-update upgrade builtin package by default. >>> >>> That's obvious: this is how package-update behaved until now. >> >> That's not an answer to the question. > > It is for me (and I'm quite surprised that it is not for you). Not sure why you're surprised, you know my approach toward backward compatibility. Never a fan of enshrining problems in amber. But in this case it's also a function that's never been in a released Emacs, so the formal conditions are lacking as well. And it's okay to use the time since the code was added as a rough proxy for stability, but when it's pretty clear (just from the comments in this very thread) that most people never noticed or forgot that it's there. So it's obviously not very well tested. Just from reading it code and testing, I see another bug: it removes the updated package from package-selected-packages because it doesn't pass NOSAVE to package-delete. Meaning, 'M-x package-autoremove' at any time later will delete it. >> Alternatively, we could add an optional argument to package-install >> which would mean "install the latest version anyway". > > There is already such an option, added as part of fixing this bug. Ok, since you insist. See attached. >>>> Just to be clear, we are talking about the 4 lines at the end, right? >>> >>> Yes, and also the (somewhat mysterious) additions of tests for >>> pkg-desc. >> >> pkg-desc is nil for builtin packages in this case (they are not in >> package-alist, so (assq package package-alist) returns nil). > > This should either be commented, or a variable with a telltale name > added to reflect this subtlety. Not a problem. --------------9C9rN0NlB8Hpl5ZHrJYPc2Z2 Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name="package-update-fix.diff" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="package-update-fix.diff" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL2xpc3AvZW1hY3MtbGlzcC9wYWNrYWdlLmVsIGIvbGlzcC9lbWFjcy1s aXNwL3BhY2thZ2UuZWwKaW5kZXggZmZhNjI3MmRkMWYuLjJjOGVlYzk5OGMxIDEwMDY0NAot LS0gYS9saXNwL2VtYWNzLWxpc3AvcGFja2FnZS5lbAorKysgYi9saXNwL2VtYWNzLWxpc3Av cGFja2FnZS5lbApAQCAtMjI3MCwxNyArMjI3MCwyMyBAQCBwYWNrYWdlLXVwZGF0ZQogICAi VXBkYXRlIHBhY2thZ2UgTkFNRSBpZiBhIG5ld2VyIHZlcnNpb24gZXhpc3RzLiIKICAgKGlu dGVyYWN0aXZlCiAgICAobGlzdCAoY29tcGxldGluZy1yZWFkCi0gICAgICAgICAgIlVwZGF0 ZSBwYWNrYWdlOiAiIChwYWNrYWdlLS11cGRhdGVhYmxlLXBhY2thZ2VzKSBuaWwgdCkpKQor ICAgICAgICAgICJVcGRhdGUgcGFja2FnZTogIiAocGFja2FnZS0tdXBkYXRlYWJsZS1wYWNr YWdlcyB0KSBuaWwgdCkpKQogICAobGV0KiAoKHBhY2thZ2UgKGlmIChzeW1ib2xwIG5hbWUp CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgbmFtZQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAoaW50 ZXJuIG5hbWUpKSkKLSAgICAgICAgIChwa2ctZGVzYyAoY2FkciAoYXNzcSBwYWNrYWdlIHBh Y2thZ2UtYWxpc3QpKSkpCi0gICAgKGlmIChwYWNrYWdlLXZjLXAgcGtnLWRlc2MpCisgICAg ICAgICAocGtnLWRlc2MgKGNhZHIgKGFzc3EgcGFja2FnZSBwYWNrYWdlLWFsaXN0KSkpCisg ICAgICAgICAocGFja2FnZS1pbnN0YWxsLXVwZ3JhZGUtYnVpbHQtaW4gKG5vdCBwa2ctZGVz YykpKQorICAgIDs7IGBwa2ctZGVzYycgd2lsbCBiZSBuaWwgd2hlbiB0aGUgcGFja2FnZSBp cyBhbiAiYWN0aXZlIGJ1aWx0LWluIi4KKyAgICAoaWYgKGFuZCBwa2ctZGVzYyAocGFja2Fn ZS12Yy1wIHBrZy1kZXNjKSkKICAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtdmMtdXBkYXRlIHBrZy1kZXNj KQotICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtZGVsZXRlIHBrZy1kZXNjICdmb3JjZSkKLSAgICAgIChwYWNr YWdlLWluc3RhbGwgcGFja2FnZSAnZG9udC1zZWxlY3QpKSkpCi0KLShkZWZ1biBwYWNrYWdl LS11cGRhdGVhYmxlLXBhY2thZ2VzICgpCisgICAgICAod2hlbiBwa2ctZGVzYworICAgICAg ICAocGFja2FnZS1kZWxldGUgcGtnLWRlc2MgJ2ZvcmNlICdub3NhdmUpKQorICAgICAgKHBh Y2thZ2UtaW5zdGFsbCBwYWNrYWdlCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDs7IEFuIGFj dGl2ZSBidWlsdC1pbiBoYXMgbmV2ZXIgYmVlbiAic2VsZWN0ZWQiCisgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIDs7IGJlZm9yZS4gIE1hcmsgaXQgYXMgaW5zdGFsbGVkIGV4cGxpY2l0bHku CisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChhbmQgcGtnLWRlc2MgJ2RvbnQtc2VsZWN0KSkp KSkKKworKGRlZnVuIHBhY2thZ2UtLXVwZGF0ZWFibGUtcGFja2FnZXMgKCZvcHRpb25hbCBh bGxvdy1idWlsdGlucykKICAgOzsgSW5pdGlhbGl6ZSB0aGUgcGFja2FnZSBzeXN0ZW0gdG8g Z2V0IHRoZSBsaXN0IG9mIHBhY2thZ2UKICAgOzsgc3ltYm9scyBmb3IgY29tcGxldGlvbi4K ICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtLWFyY2hpdmVzLWluaXRpYWxpemUpCkBAIC0yMjkxLDExICsyMjk3LDIx IEBAIHBhY2thZ2UtLXVwZGF0ZWFibGUtcGFja2FnZXMKICAgICAgIChvciAobGV0ICgoYXZh aWxhYmxlCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChhc3NxIChjYXIgZWx0KSBwYWNrYWdlLWFyY2hp dmUtY29udGVudHMpKSkKICAgICAgICAgICAgIChhbmQgYXZhaWxhYmxlCi0gICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICh2ZXJzaW9uLWxpc3QtPAotICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtZGVz Yy12ZXJzaW9uIChjYWRyIGVsdCkpCi0gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAocGFja2FnZS1kZXNj LXZlcnNpb24gKGNhZHIgYXZhaWxhYmxlKSkpKSkKLSAgICAgICAgICAocGFja2FnZS12Yy1w IChjYWRyIChhc3NxIChjYXIgZWx0KSBwYWNrYWdlLWFsaXN0KSkpKSkKLSAgICBwYWNrYWdl LWFsaXN0KSkpCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChvciAoYW5kCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgYWxsb3ctYnVpbHRpbnMKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAobm90IChwYWNr YWdlLWRlc2MtdmVyc2lvbiAoY2FkciBlbHQpKSkpCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAo dmVyc2lvbi1saXN0LTwKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAocGFja2FnZS1kZXNjLXZl cnNpb24gKGNhZHIgZWx0KSkKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAocGFja2FnZS1kZXNj LXZlcnNpb24gKGNhZHIgYXZhaWxhYmxlKSkpKSkpCisgICAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtdmMt cCAoY2FkciBlbHQpKSkpCisgICAgKGlmIGFsbG93LWJ1aWx0aW5zCisgICAgICAgIChhcHBl bmQgcGFja2FnZS1hbGlzdAorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChtYXBjYW4KKyAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgKGxhbWJkYSAoZWx0KQorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICh3aGVuIChub3QgKGFz c3EgKGNhciBlbHQpIHBhY2thZ2UtYWxpc3QpKQorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKGxp c3QgKGxpc3QgKGNhciBlbHQpIChwYWNrYWdlLS1mcm9tLWJ1aWx0aW4gZWx0KSkpKSkKKyAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgcGFja2FnZS0tYnVpbHRpbnMpKQorICAgICAgcGFja2FnZS1hbGlz dCkpKSkKIAogOzs7IyMjYXV0b2xvYWQKIChkZWZ1biBwYWNrYWdlLXVwZGF0ZS1hbGwgKCZv cHRpb25hbCBxdWVyeSkK --------------9C9rN0NlB8Hpl5ZHrJYPc2Z2-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 02:38:56 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 06:38:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44530 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqTN9-0002H8-IB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:38:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38508) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqTN6-0002Gt-Ds for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:38:53 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqTMz-0008Vs-4D; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:38:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=GL9uQFhM6WoROUTqc39AEG6wkfqbSCR6V5AdhVGnjfY=; b=ObHKWLSuP1Gt 1y0V1wiwBuMv0FKkQtE238tLdjI3xzCE2n5TpZqpuQcHbtzpR9JNcguaG6+HJjw19hLEzRLbMGCWd PVxMIjwwZFS+vSmMHTDQWZPxRj3m8t9H2nTC47zp0FtrNmrdj5JjdIbO/V36vPudgeeWOcv8PX9Y3 cQIzvZH3//F+urWV+wdfocJXKVK5Ctk6FCSc9/T+A9NJ0KnB2yQPZ9SWPQ1VAuFdsFpvm4EErndq8 nkzKr66VEB7Zzjkz3ImNPr95JINH7rxEHrljjxc2AWopl5DgYJogvTt150edg1EpdaQTVdn9mPow1 P8Vy3ghSblYGGKhyRhrvOA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqTMx-0002Iv-Bk; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:38:44 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:39:03 +0300 Message-Id: <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:46:05 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:46:05 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > >>> And I thought I've explained why I didn't see a need for another > >>> option. > >> > >> I also don't see the point of using an option here. > > > > We must not change past behavior unconditionally and by default, not > > this close to the release. > > We're still allowed bugfixing, I believe. Not when fixing it might introduce another bug or break someone's workflow. > >>>>> and only then > >>>>> update built-in packages. > >>>> > >>>> I asked what plausible scenario you think might be broken by having > >>>> package-update upgrade builtin package by default. > >>> > >>> That's obvious: this is how package-update behaved until now. > >> > >> That's not an answer to the question. > > > > It is for me (and I'm quite surprised that it is not for you). > > Not sure why you're surprised, you know my approach toward backward > compatibility. Never a fan of enshrining problems in amber. > > But in this case it's also a function that's never been in a released > Emacs, so the formal conditions are lacking as well. > > And it's okay to use the time since the code was added as a rough proxy > for stability, but when it's pretty clear (just from the comments in > this very thread) that most people never noticed or forgot that it's > there. So it's obviously not very well tested. What is obvious to you is not obvious to me. > Just from reading it code and testing, I see another bug: it removes the > updated package from package-selected-packages because it doesn't pass > NOSAVE to package-delete. Meaning, 'M-x package-autoremove' at any time > later will delete it. If there are bugs, we need to fix them. Philip, any comments regarding this particular issue with package-autoremove after package-update? > >> Alternatively, we could add an optional argument to package-install > >> which would mean "install the latest version anyway". > > > > There is already such an option, added as part of fixing this bug. > > Ok, since you insist. See attached. I don't understand how this patch is supposed to be any progress in this discussion. I see no prefix argument handling in package-update and no change in behavior when package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil. So why did you think this brings the code closer to what I suggested? Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 07:58:46 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 11:58:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44699 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqYMg-0005aJ-8l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 07:58:46 -0400 Received: from wnew1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.26]:46361) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqYMe-0005a2-5x for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 07:58:44 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9B02B066F0; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 07:58:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 23 Apr 2023 07:58:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682251117; x=1682254717; bh=IcCzNCLRoSzOskHMVDvhbkpKdX0tOvwQElu m8MRaohU=; b=GX6wtGcZRtGeIdvzAMl5h+21B31yPptaFBnSFlqk38AW7EjUz9i dVvQeVzT1isYAThQS8n7BCcA362d4JUzf8zOHd++fMqGrKuZflLZhsdA/z+p2E5A gjlbYtijy4z3eyllBxFxkdLE395/HDDTFknfy0IkC1RBNIvA3AQhIIyyP1FZxxmj haJQfqba/BhTx9B+RvsBLo+F2rUXvkI+j8wIeNqKryxPa4Pxaq1mvAa3lbcaGYbA t1M5lKxBfsGHUzM6dGdWee8iKxgM7yQsx3hqLz9FVcOju+bML2tZd0MYKsHJN5fa jCtO2WSkW98/n+8WOUdUa8774G41YDD8KBg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682251117; x=1682254717; bh=IcCzNCLRoSzOskHMVDvhbkpKdX0tOvwQElu m8MRaohU=; b=GM66d1brfXx72jO7Q8Q4UztprZMGMXaKhzJtFPW9q2swV8G8ACU 1JX6kzFZDak9Ab9X/ctf96EB+xGWvWrv3XwrdJgfqIqsL4ddBPwRuDx/cVwCE1dV tEx+po2Z3Zlh0bSAecSfZJ/5pSmPuKSmOm1PdheKIwTvGpQ3aheyEiOu9EC9SVU4 NPMBJoxqXr4X5Zz3ESPYrH1eiQN6nXqeg0bMJdwCXtbjloXOmAkx2GO4nCZrF0kq QOgCbg5fzrqhasY5rJIpd9XiUZP9834jNthPw4WP28rNC5T5axuM8rXtDChdk7hL zoPgZiCekmVpL0FVGXTH0jxCFTMm1WnwV7w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtkedggeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 07:58:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 14:58:33 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) On 23/04/2023 09:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I don't understand how this patch is supposed to be any progress in > this discussion. I see no prefix argument handling in package-update > and no change in behavior when package-install-upgrade-built-in is > non-nil. So why did you think this brings the code closer to what I > suggested? It addressed two last points from your previous email, obviously. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 09:01:43 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 13:01:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44823 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZLb-0007Q9-5Y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:01:43 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:36815) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZLZ-0007Pu-BC for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:01:42 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87CF12400B1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 15:01:35 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1682254895; bh=oF2wLn4VHmkdT0N010431S4Z9bUUmYCAY4SLtIHhqcI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=Dro6TU85D31nrnVbFTPWm4feO43Fplk7OTNsFoE/7gzNnQKG894lLMxO5W2WGBneW DsxR1RKCxyE+bNSwqJXTZkJAW7p7I26iNzdrB7xt6fH4PTqcLF2u8u84KKeZlO8CFr b7aJIc1y1F7gphy6+X/TdPuCD6Ergd33vqDGIMbIQSPihcNJ4quapQddGbryUajLiv PEJ/p3rYO3fRzo1aNq9djXM7HOYnqRDZ8UkHskVV6EVqYCpxFPseeHpDeDQEkUn0ls uVRO8RI55fqKSwhc5D7HIrlVtvG2OD+HSop1/yrhIZkw3VyZ+btn3ncwGdPUQx6q22 ny4d2c4ru9ihA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Q47gf34fwz6tn4; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 15:01:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Dmitry Gutov Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:37:50 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:02:06 +0000 Message-ID: <87354q92gh.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) Dmitry Gutov writes: > Philip, > > On 13/04/2023 21:49, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >> + (when (and (or current-prefix-arg package-install-upgrade-built-in) >> + (package--active-built-in-p pkg)) >> + (setq pkg (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) > > How sure are you that the first element in (cdr (assq name > package-archive-contents)) will contain the latest version? This is not certain, but the same approach is used in other places in package.el, so I just stocked to it. > When reading the code I stumbled on these two items: > > - Comment in package-compute-transaction: > > ;; pkg-descs is sorted by priority, not version, so > ;; don't error just yet. > > - package-menu--find-upgrades iterates through installed packages and > checks for new versions with this condition: > > (version-list-< (package-desc-priority-version pkg-desc) > (package-desc-priority-version avail-pkg)) > > That's why I came with the more complex way to choose the appropriate > package-desc in my latest attempt: > > (car > (last (seq-sort-by #'package-desc-priority-version > #'version-list-< > (cdr (assq package package-archive-contents))))) If we insist on package.el installing the newest version, then this would make sense. AFAIK there is no guarantees on the order of packages in `package-archive-contents'. This shouldn't be an issue for Eglot, but might be one for use-package. I would actually pull it out into a separate utility function that we would re-use in other places. > Would be happy to hear it's an overkill and we can use the more simple > version. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 09:02:06 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 13:02:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44828 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZLy-0007RC-H2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:02:06 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58388) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZLw-0007QV-2M for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:02:04 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZLq-0003og-Bz; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:01:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=scd76GR0ykiDgb+50GJ6o6RoZABwkK7WxEOvBvkBsvU=; b=ejIORfJ7uKBB 6hufv3qQEqU/WLPTBqQOQeqcOu36Oy/qZZotlcbmqwtGYRlYKeS0YR0nI/LLs65TNQYOGOv91ZfZB Z2nNEyaQ+rIaua2HdfFqTs+mNgrxGQOVASHKUrs0MfZZlu6Uw5j2CWf28xgpGaVp3xWYIIp1avc9u WG7tiiJcaFePQWoAAdOW8iz92iJudswIKv8EBCGePgq5Qdr9w6fYnqp6bm2IlE2jWGUcKZc7+Zujb kbCMNabrnhuxqXSF5kfmgPJpTpPJIQzdNIcwuZ3b97xuUeNNC0R2J2RJwOM/NIcuqOHzWAU82FuTp cbJWrvg6qJTHnR0lwx74tw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZLp-0001ru-S7; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:01:58 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:02:19 +0300 Message-Id: <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sun, 23 Apr 2023 14:58:33 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 14:58:33 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 23/04/2023 09:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > I don't understand how this patch is supposed to be any progress in > > this discussion. I see no prefix argument handling in package-update > > and no change in behavior when package-install-upgrade-built-in is > > non-nil. So why did you think this brings the code closer to what I > > suggested? > > It addressed two last points from your previous email, obviously. Which points are those? Please help me identify them. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 09:04:53 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 13:04:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44833 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZOf-0007Up-4a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:04:53 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:46207) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZOe-0007Ue-De for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:04:52 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E14492400A0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 15:04:46 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1682255086; bh=PQ7Q3vqNLtK3pc7h/HXldUa4hahFCqTtkMtpi9rL6fM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=IcDykflrObibvRQRAMDgIahWKDuR6XihTN8/8j2q5zXnwDOpywofFKytGvd+9QwOw bLJcLfkETu4KLDOZwcNa6om+s/u0FdJrBsNRrgS30yLE/Wk4qXWO1c0tPWBfi6oG+L LXZd0T4+H6l7+A7yxeS3bX9behLkWcbIOdpbXBBNqVIC+Z2CcoVVyz03OIfjpMG7od 3YpKPby/c1uIQloaTRYC8v2i0CAysGHHDSzDKbodoWQrsVjMUovoSsg8VSyZSzJW6A ehXaOhcWqcXkFovMpllfApejuRYv1GDKIzR8zU9jprg08+zAxmICzo4gdQZHGfxbil 4oZw/iQfZLwzQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Q47lL28kdz6txR; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 15:04:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:39:03 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:05:18 +0000 Message-ID: <87y1mi7nqp.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov , joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Just from reading it code and testing, I see another bug: it removes the >> updated package from package-selected-packages because it doesn't pass >> NOSAVE to package-delete. Meaning, 'M-x package-autoremove' at any time >> later will delete it. > > If there are bugs, we need to fix them. > > Philip, any comments regarding this particular issue with > package-autoremove after package-update? If this is an issue, I think it would be nice if it could be reported in a separate issue to ease tracking, so that we can solve it in time for Emacs 29. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 09:09:57 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 13:09:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44838 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZTY-0007br-RT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:09:57 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:40239) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZTX-0007bb-Jd for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:09:56 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F0D58214E; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:09:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682255389; x=1682258989; bh=W+ZV1JAGWidYxLGjQWQKqb0f872bfpg0YBj 3/glfdWs=; b=X367DPRa+0YZMqJYyG1huiO4beQRWlMzezBTuhx+A2y73kg+YJC sxDLQbfSzOAxkaBNwKazItoadLn5owd4pVhpL2Zb6XoBGhlEawrm/waxdB1Qvfcx hWBj1kjB8PSQ3zlCFDyBhoTVQ2rHLFHa71uAUC0gWN5GyRnkOl5CmX1buByBTpH+ n8n24W9o3QZFMBSjJMCTIf3v3IsXFLwVr6A0Cf2lt4Jxl6B4efIji71j2cYbNRDW sNv6jmV3oiD1FVp+DDR0nzzlE4trlHVe220cZEY5klwQL4VndTXUm2g3aQIBP5lM +jp4epiDur9tfD0WMx64IjYr0G3mqv4erOA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682255389; x=1682258989; bh=W+ZV1JAGWidYxLGjQWQKqb0f872bfpg0YBj 3/glfdWs=; b=T/XGLbgP/T/Cjc0rEgLiTWmOUJayoTGyoH3G1C6PZ8XpTmWe/nR qjusJydRWX4CXRXGpmN4CmpBVgFQn6TwDdZL0zzwnk+0gNbPm73+8g9OuojWPYm4 jw+CJDRPI704U6WzMxCD4WgzWYMZhJZ9r9pSNJqHZoX66pBijw2liPV+JodQ6w3X Dy1cbWY/lLUQaaqwfjfZuM0L3IJ8vIz2wS8s/irBqO+ajrzDOUGo6ztXYWf72Y3C NrE9Z0pZX207UhdgREF1Pgw6Wy0k0SeLJ5i1TOWAZAaE6TxmZgz0nDYb/spH+1wU U7kIQgz1UUUpH7F77TqCaw8/8waDdZk1LRA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtkedgiedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <923397cd-a4dd-81d4-1ebd-11e7768df73f@gutov.dev> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:09:44 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Philip Kaludercic , Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <87y1mi7nqp.fsf@posteo.net> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <87y1mi7nqp.fsf@posteo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 23/04/2023 16:05, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > >>> Just from reading it code and testing, I see another bug: it removes the >>> updated package from package-selected-packages because it doesn't pass >>> NOSAVE to package-delete. Meaning, 'M-x package-autoremove' at any time >>> later will delete it. >> If there are bugs, we need to fix them. >> >> Philip, any comments regarding this particular issue with >> package-autoremove after package-update? > If this is an issue, I think it would be nice if it could be reported in > a separate issue to ease tracking, so that we can solve it in time for > Emacs 29. I've included the fix in the patch. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 09:12:02 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 13:12:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44846 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZVZ-0007fH-Rz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:12:02 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:58033) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqZVR-0007es-6x for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:11:59 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2955658214E; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:11:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:11:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682255508; x=1682259108; bh=KS/s7DiCg0ccjgyfQzmO5V2sjjlx08/wj7k UwYkrY8c=; b=GWwWD4SflGyBNLpNaT8kjIIT0V2mkayQgaIIB2z/Xxvw3i9FJGl pmRIKNo4BOjVkalqy5Fh6n4XLfM0oq/qJ7gmbIsOzfOWk0SkEHQyj26cxJHTPA/M 1j8QSuENRuwTMAcNAbhjCNCCzctsrzIo+o+XLuVJvUucXJ2UTYL9qmm30ITX5cAN bhkoS8f3PmeWruCmALDL6L7hJEMi3zXi+ZLSiydU5+PJ2tKkkYYtSeXTQJQ4saOs /ZlO48+JDkFnSIUlzoaqTtwlExvcc5NUCNQ23GjiktjaAo81G1ZGpfTQSdkqf2Xa OAGRJW7tUNeKU7iQ4MUGQgDOznzV3GFkLRA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682255508; x=1682259108; bh=KS/s7DiCg0ccjgyfQzmO5V2sjjlx08/wj7k UwYkrY8c=; b=U87IDtbaLPhkwJPTostZhJfzs7ibM8Y40BNIuafJByGonmXMI7h sEcPoF/aRMgQhewC0dz+svf8pSOxkniVxsOTp5oMonzOIFPWfcmYzQobVGnwE98s laZDtzRFjni1mU0QTQ8kvD/Ljj/4Qh8PTL7H4WgcnBS8A55TwVDng17IBoB3RKJ8 H57QpVvbXcjM3v9UesY7ISfxPzmZ7pxIkkDuOM+5SLrXa5c4Q5f3bYMJVIoXAA6w uEDkBDB3Dc4qnukukM/5OGNsWrnx4ikwU8hStkOLI4M6NltUFYTFIpY7ooqGegP4 wqS/Y4DPz7KLUS3P6xkFN5rquZQ3S9/+Thw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtkedgiedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgepudenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:11:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:11:44 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) On 23/04/2023 16:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 14:58:33 +0300 >> Cc:jporterbugs@gmail.com,philipk@posteo.net,62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> joaotavora@gmail.com,larsi@gnus.org,monnier@iro.umontreal.ca >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >> On 23/04/2023 09:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> I don't understand how this patch is supposed to be any progress in >>> this discussion. I see no prefix argument handling in package-update >>> and no change in behavior when package-install-upgrade-built-in is >>> non-nil. So why did you think this brings the code closer to what I >>> suggested? >> It addressed two last points from your previous email, obviously. > Which points are those? Please help me identify them. These two: > There is already such an option, added as part of fixing this bug. The binding was added, so now we straight away delegate to package-install. > This should either be commented, or a variable with a telltale name added to reflect this subtlety. A comment was added as well. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 10:24:25 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 14:24:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46546 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqadd-0001lh-AC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 10:24:25 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54328) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqadb-0001lV-4w for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 10:24:24 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqadU-0002Vy-OP; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 10:24:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=82Vhh85HA2YBjgg6WW9Qci0W0XP4jOhDcHHouMKXmtU=; b=E8YQmLGmkpwF OcS5vvABR/SQp1C9/CUxak+c2z1VHqpgoMT8/xhBLucat43C0sjVbz1Y9LMiWVz5+wxB/aO/dUDvy uxlzraZ5frPpjThx5S5lS1ce2h5kfW+iI9cRjwSeGWyBx+PPFovvrFqySwdvLdErMM+URfR5YO1Pi WhdXcEnisKq9xHlTc6Q7a0QFALXk11LclE0UT8g8ElB1GBEuqmLR9Dhqn+UdDfHEXbql7T5rg/Son XcP48M8BM57sJn+mNAAptqBJ+b+bMVOenJWdy3A55uR/dy6fDXnLfPbDzPol7DNFwXrAnAgCpG40/ eikedVJohY8Llx5rzhucdg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqadU-0005x0-4Q; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 10:24:16 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 17:24:37 +0300 Message-Id: <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:11:44 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:11:44 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > >> It addressed two last points from your previous email, obviously. > > Which points are those? Please help me identify them. > > These two: > > > There is already such an option, added as part of fixing this bug. > > The binding was added, so now we straight away delegate to package-install. I meant to give the user the control on whether package-update will update built-in packages, like we did with package-install: either via prefix argument or by customizing the user option. > > This should either be commented, or a variable with a telltale name > added to reflect this subtlety. > > A comment was added as well. This one I did see, thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 16:56:34 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 20:56:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47027 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqgl8-0001MB-Fy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:56:34 -0400 Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.221]:52973) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqgl7-0001Lz-3G for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:56:33 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FA6582160; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:56:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682283387; x=1682286987; bh=kV4QoMs0FR4T7w+WZ5UwjKcY1yglRILcyAz /vEkiprw=; b=Ror49Duwn+qHQ9cbi3th7fzqyehdqRAtwh4MJmythSr/6qhZTpr MXLDXFg1TqXJJM5OvLzNcCyhgQBNoAvIhsSRx+kIGCWfHX6nS04u7F/m5/G+2TYb /f7qIuMmvKh/D7R+2WgGOrVUOFfw9NxqL/2GVLB2m0uycr8IKRJQQT3QBOhqYVO5 rgsl4gD5c4AoEeW97yUnj0zrQVYWC64Z7F3p9YeKoSTkio1CQdrOLMx+AoQSxHrh MeIfs8KAO6/eETnRHIvB6WvMP0JTHKagkcwRlsR6zacT6jWxno8Q5/1YCSBzH9yT yJDiqCuI81E+9ouLXYBgIKhrId/V5dMdkQw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682283387; x=1682286987; bh=kV4QoMs0FR4T7w+WZ5UwjKcY1yglRILcyAz /vEkiprw=; b=hR+V3yD2DGviRjrF93Tk8cV6lEwydwFa7RUpy22Z1Nt1e72HT/6 bcp1XlXneFf6nDyCcvlZ3Cu2EgbK3zVxCW6mhVIzEzw2A+xlAmggjAhGYbk96D/T fi3q/DHbAI58B6FctCrMVQ6iXqDEshy4/3bySbRrVaJVuckj3G/fRIP6Y5ZYWlO4 KmuwoBDj2anpMjwV92GN0Pfrg9BshEHufaWLtXHYsQy8hyolEfDiCzrbGlcbuRWg PnqqfHVopDhC38rmdBF3ZjBv0UAV30kxug90eBQryf/Do59RT+h1wkJ8iy8yGUpn IB6twnpfsZUdjMtEciu7CcCWW3o67CDtZ6g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtkedgudehhecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeigfetveehveevffehledtueekieeikeeufeegudfgfeeghfdulefgfeev ledvveenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <952d1e4d-ef80-ae15-ae27-508ec3d68559@gutov.dev> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 23:56:23 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Philip Kaludercic References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <87354q92gh.fsf@posteo.net> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <87354q92gh.fsf@posteo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.8 (--) On 23/04/2023 16:02, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > Dmitry Gutov writes: > >> Philip, >> >> On 13/04/2023 21:49, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >>> + (when (and (or current-prefix-arg package-install-upgrade-built-in) >>> + (package--active-built-in-p pkg)) >>> + (setq pkg (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) >> >> How sure are you that the first element in (cdr (assq name >> package-archive-contents)) will contain the latest version? > > This is not certain, but the same approach is used in other places in > package.el, so I just stocked to it. Perhaps they conceal latent bugs as well. I don't know the codebase too well, but the places I did examine used the comparison together with the priority. >> That's why I came with the more complex way to choose the appropriate >> package-desc in my latest attempt: >> >> (car >> (last (seq-sort-by #'package-desc-priority-version >> #'version-list-< >> (cdr (assq package package-archive-contents))))) > > If we insist on package.el installing the newest version, then this > would make sense. What's the alternative? Upgrading to "some version"? > AFAIK there is no guarantees on the order of packages > in `package-archive-contents'. This shouldn't be an issue for Eglot, > but might be one for use-package. Ah, it seems they removed it from Melpa, that shouldn't surprise me. Eglot is in the GNU-devel archive as well, though. So there is some potential for conflict. > I would actually pull it out into a > separate utility function that we would re-use in other places. Since I had to drop the respective code from the latest version of the patch, I guess you could put it in package-install instead. A reusable helper is fine, of course, but what are the other places we would use it at? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 17:53:41 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 21:53:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47059 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqheP-0002r1-CA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 17:53:41 -0400 Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.221]:55069) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqheN-0002qp-1d for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 17:53:39 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6F6582142; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 17:53:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 23 Apr 2023 17:53:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682286813; x=1682290413; bh=yX0KoJuOjPT34DUzJg830w484KphKsa/6KJ fb8IAOUU=; b=lg22l8mWJUgl1jlmC5wN0hH9ZDb42297Y3aQOnvcbjsXY/5fGkH /EDN9iZ1DanIc/+GEwNmi8nEpwfyQIk8GaAWmUtCNRE6p+NSF4x12WC0Bwt8aa2I UKlqUv8KWPPZQPs3OsYlvg7bLabKM15loLDia8AmGebvBi3H2MnmIF0Sg5FQS69i DAy+d6+88OLuUWTlSdp9RZmKeYVXBFV06qKr0XUBLOvzA8vinQkjOqzHDVcakxDl zwcScWq4T0ITdW8VdhXehtv3R000RpTvNb+Xj4Lv05dLjOh7kB1BX85nVKDxDD7c qoZiDz6tqRuf6pH55JXgZAodnJ+52YWUNKg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682286813; x=1682290413; bh=yX0KoJuOjPT34DUzJg830w484KphKsa/6KJ fb8IAOUU=; b=WL9a+9eOzh556UA42VAGFsAv3aKF8G+5NJn+ys2PfG1kwXN2Mil UKHiEtd/1umxgxdefx1wYkFo1VWvvLK7VBBqzKFwGg1CXHeKM9/HZ/f2cTfGD4Tp tPy3Oh40Hpzqv7HFTqrxWjkZfRBfsM0VUdVS6wGEEX7cKVoTiQqPrZyKbExcVl/C VKzzfVo+jm9GkXUfsfpXi6t2MfGjDxX3HrLQFOqdTVfr+1ZhT2eog8Eqp/sViKcn gns34SI+cgGATpyFjmwqTaWHxJWenzag2UNSMSyXFAreieFBYbCxg58jLN9WYmZU fIPFA+wOp493elgd2ifWGJy2aaOPPB9fFYg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedtledgtdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 17:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:53:30 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.8 (--) On 23/04/2023 17:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:11:44 +0300 >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >>>> It addressed two last points from your previous email, obviously. >>> Which points are those? Please help me identify them. >> >> These two: >> >> > There is already such an option, added as part of fixing this bug. >> >> The binding was added, so now we straight away delegate to package-install. > > I meant to give the user the control on whether package-update will > update built-in packages, like we did with package-install: either via > prefix argument or by customizing the user option. That would be a different change, though. So what are we guarding against here? That the user will choose a built-in package to upgrade by accident? And we'll show her an error, saying "use the prefix argument"? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 03:48:18 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 07:48:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47391 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqqvp-0003Dq-Rt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 03:48:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com ([209.85.128.51]:48446) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqqvn-0003D3-Q7 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 03:48:16 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f1738d0d4cso25291105e9.1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:48:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682322490; x=1684914490; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=ljpYy/QIMIUr3QfTpJA+PSd5K8JsWlrwETVHFkXFORs=; b=Z7zoCkiuHalL1Xvgh4cBk1hgZ3cpzlDIlWgIokRXAQpkYaJs/fqCYN/12WfXrY7eNE I8HbuYLnswp1Oi0WuVfOIBarhYFAD5ho4OUpkdGSWl+gm4LP3chYcz95uPbx7h/0G2X/ MgmCID2Jbs/FcxzfvFFsL3rRpL+CRQblkxgNVp9G3cj0SdTDxsOsHi+Rc9YARRxFPfIp CPMScvwWkcvTaGTQIe8MKHMqJCK65XgiSPViPSE2VN71iBse+c7cueODYs730mz16epK gaBOeZi9uJC6I32Fr2iMDhD+9xTwMeguuFUXUaMNOH4wSMGpufanJSe3R/uXg0CVpmBJ dGvA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682322490; x=1684914490; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ljpYy/QIMIUr3QfTpJA+PSd5K8JsWlrwETVHFkXFORs=; b=X68xJvfjq6TaCdA7tF+BnrT+4ZRoOqmZ82gNzCndbWbnGcPnSbiPK9kxJPd6b8SOGf tCwvpXajuTVsi9IRPs3qpl7J+0ukRJiTLbXnnCge7D5ZSd/g+aoWJ/NifFTUXewdzIzR j1Feke4td4W+Hvz3urpIuH6+YhElZ2QP7s/Z7OSFQIo1A81847HDnaUvkG5kH+orc/D3 h5ndvVLKfbgGuU+he3tvRJNKl7UyEUrwim+ljeemtUaOLkV/GjhrsqOjLLiIW7U7L+Mq Zn6PTLkb0yPTI/eMXkJcl5ITSEcCYE9ZdxTBpgRdA/wVplRZ9pRBetQqOB+SphWP38Yg Lo1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fW9aLIHZugOZSrsyL7LgmwlRHuenXIJ79WrA5BxPmL94GHsucR 94vWetc4VJbbp5q6YB90JUI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bseThtnPAVV0K/9JfOFBsvAQ/AzJkFlMoT7k764vefiqjTziyLKn7i/wif5OT4gb/4pNsyNQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4905:0:b0:2ef:b87f:2a23 with SMTP id x5-20020a5d4905000000b002efb87f2a23mr8867663wrq.60.1682322489616; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rltb ([82.66.8.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m4-20020adffa04000000b002fe96f0b3acsm10155231wrr.63.2023.04.24.00.48.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:48:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Pluim To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Thu, 20 Apr 2023 19:53:16 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:48:08 +0200 Message-ID: <871qk9d8lj.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, Dmitry Gutov , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) >>>>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 19:53:16 +0100, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora said: Jo=C3=A3o> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 7:08=E2=80=AFPM Robert Pluim wrote: >> "We" may not know that, but by the principle of not giving me things= *I* >> didn=CA=BCt ask for, *I* don=CA=BCt want ':core' packages being auto= matically >> upgraded, unless I either >>=20 >> 1. explicitly ask for such an upgrade >> 2. have myself somehow installed a newer version already, in which c= ase >> it=CA=BCs no longer a ':core' package >>=20 >> I=CA=BCve not checked, but does what=CA=BCs currently in emacs-29 no= t give us at >> least [1]? Jo=C3=A3o> Not when package dependencies are involved. If you weren't = aware, Jo=C3=A3o> in Emacs 26 (including 29), if you explicitly ask to install= package A Jo=C3=A3o> and it depends on :core package B, which you didn't ask to i= nstall, Jo=C3=A3o> package B gets upgraded. I think that=CA=BCs OK as a behaviour Jo=C3=A3o> In another data point, the last two patches I proposed to pa= ckage-install Jo=C3=A3o> are similar and only extend the "upgrade-even-if-:core" beha= viour Jo=C3=A3o> to two packages that weren't core are now :core. Those two = packages Jo=C3=A3o> are Eglot and Use-Package. The rationale I used to develop = these patches Jo=C3=A3o> was to protect users like you (inasmuch as Emacs 28 already = protects Jo=C3=A3o> you) _and_ to protect Eglot users. I am of course presuming= that Jo=C3=A3o> you aren't/weren't also an Eglot user, otherwise you would h= ave been Jo=C3=A3o> hit by these package upgrades related to dependencies in Ema= cs 28 Jo=C3=A3o> and would have noticed them. I use eglot on emacs-29, but have never installed it (and I never run emacs-28 any more :-)) Robert --=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 04:58:05 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 08:58:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47512 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqs1M-0005Mn-Tq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 04:58:05 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f179.google.com ([209.85.167.179]:44265) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqs1K-0005MF-3l for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 04:58:02 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f179.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-38ded2d8bcaso2467598b6e.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 01:58:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682326676; x=1684918676; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tU3x8/DTWqLp7EBC/lBjFDkeG6QH9KI/TvVz13x0JfE=; b=AWAmZqBPvol9OC2+pUnL7rrR8FV2mBSS78LS/wWXFPoMW6jHgu+hmtErPeUikR2OGh MntsDJZOkk/wOlscssj3ZW34O6dHQkp2HJAtL9D/A9kvEJoK2vx2iGTxrkMgv/m7dFSV jHnj5ZiXhbIYFC2Ypjd002np8/tVuwBFkd7C+Pjw/wdVhDgYRMzKiF37QJaHuiXYr3Um fmAqCf2Y0nIqMHr9CFH2KLhi1chNlROrq5oXD7mrvbCntLA5EqEm6D3ACk19BgMN0CX+ YKvsdLjFJIioNN5or8zRqdtB3IqC8Zrt5J0YDmx+0bOV26HLoasgsGyfTl4PJRnC5PH2 LGOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682326676; x=1684918676; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tU3x8/DTWqLp7EBC/lBjFDkeG6QH9KI/TvVz13x0JfE=; b=lHl9fQj/5Ajmk5qQz9hIgZl2GFWFkHemvjXoUn5y6TUCWZdv6Bk0yNP+K1VD7p/jfn OrY6Zi5ug77XeUrZH212e6um6ZCz7AKmKP4E3F5jWNKGYGuzECoKLAH4yow/yF8E5UsW bFPRAzGcSCEUt9yoLB/glOmY/GhLrj7Yn8lzfLN3N80BOxH8xuFYDUyEqzfs7HQUEjL0 GgOTvQjm5WGQzu+yUt/VwIvHImSF6+dA33g6vRH/SOx9GnAb/JB6Kdlbj3bcyarTo6AN z/9eMqahcb4VlV/lpp6kWQXyL/BpUtxuLP5xcZcyvwwVHZzhMfJ2zyppDZtpj/wmozK/ lyUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cp193TWBWo/kCHpuU0ErStYWJ17DCzHEycKXOFov2uXwll9WZQ HG0QK6aehD33IZOF/L/ie3fBXUV/RCdQoTjNhF8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Z/IhyfsOUuc4fv1g/7CHlFOrGJpcdJtTasZfcp0XwfOvjI3PQho+QBtklWReRmyo1OvQgNZQ6JbeGjlpZsKIc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1597:b0:388:fff3:61e6 with SMTP id t23-20020a056808159700b00388fff361e6mr8546739oiw.38.1682326676368; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 01:57:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qk9d8lj.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <871qk9d8lj.fsf@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:57:43 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Robert Pluim Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f0f1db05fa113381" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Jim Porter , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." , Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii , Lars Ingebrigtsen 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 (-) --000000000000f0f1db05fa113381 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 08:48 Robert Pluim wrote: > > > Jo=C3=A3o> Not when package dependencies are involved. If you weren'= t > aware, > Jo=C3=A3o> in Emacs 26 (including 29), if you explicitly ask to insta= ll > package A > Jo=C3=A3o> and it depends on :core package B, which you didn't ask to > install, > Jo=C3=A3o> package B gets upgraded. > > I think that=CA=BCs OK as a behaviour Noted :) . I am of course presuming that > Jo=C3=A3o> you aren't/weren't also an Eglot user, otherwise you would= have > been > Jo=C3=A3o> hit by these package upgrades related to dependencies in E= macs 28 > Jo=C3=A3o> and would have noticed them. > > I use eglot on emacs-29, but have never installed it (and I never run > emacs-28 any more :-)) > Also noted. Eglot on Emacs 29 is generally the most stable version of it you can get. However is has less features. Expect the gap to grow with time. Some fringe LSP servers are also better supported on later versions. If you never use package-install on Eglot, then there's even less reason to worry about my patch, which only affects Eglot. (Meaning, FTR, that we're still missing an account from at least one user who would be perturbed by my patch.) Robert, do you use package-install at all? On what packages? Jo=C3=A3o --000000000000f0f1db05fa113381 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 08:48 Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> wrote:


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jo=C3=A3o> Not when package dependencies are involved.=C2= =A0 If you weren't aware,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jo=C3=A3o> in Emacs 26 (including 29), if you explicitly a= sk to install package A
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jo=C3=A3o> and it depends on :core package B, which you di= dn't ask to install,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jo=C3=A3o> package B gets upgraded.

I think that=CA=BCs OK as a behaviour

Noted :)

=
=C2=A0 .=C2=A0 I am of course presuming that
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jo=C3=A3o> you aren't/weren't also an Eglot user, = otherwise you would have been
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jo=C3=A3o> hit by these package upgrades related to depend= encies in Emacs 28
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jo=C3=A3o> and would have noticed them.

I use eglot on emacs-29, but have never installed it (and I never run
emacs-28 any more :-))

Also noted. Eglot on Emacs 29 is generally the most s= table version of it you can get. However is has less features. Expect the g= ap to grow with time. Some fringe LSP servers are also better supported on = later versions.

If you n= ever use package-install on Eglot, then there's even less reason to wor= ry about my patch, which only affects Eglot.

(Meaning, FTR, that we're still missing an account= from at least one user who would be perturbed by my patch.)

Robert, do you use package-install at= all? On what packages?

= Jo=C3=A3o


--000000000000f0f1db05fa113381-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 05:39:01 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 09:39:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47540 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqsez-0000My-72 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:39:01 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f42.google.com ([209.85.221.42]:59761) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqsex-0000Mk-79 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:38:59 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f42.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-2fc3f1d6f8cso2562608f8f.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 02:38:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682329133; x=1684921133; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=+ExQ5ltA22gDtFJCuXLqbMOq2/Mg/6A/sd41bOl0ZQg=; b=GNvvHCUrAlOMhZTz0yDxyIpLfKnKVL0ZWWi9PCIg7XEDy90O9tv9TieJwHtSN6SCRU JUtcOgfKLjD7LMtlnvNw+25EJMd2cW+bTrrGXDZs0Io6yl1jEzAzUNj7ivfPYIJngo1y d7q1cj3x5G5sqADR/frQ8z1FOXnIQgMtXCNEBEbHgNK+2Bv6Q3ItG8OxBPtfmNUIN6gF rtDcOlN8T0MkqURF0SCtvvDxyIxjVua24lt2PzpKv4lyrCo8M3PKc1nLIpFWNSv8orIP QFzxsYGi8r46BBdKq3rRtRwPTQRNT+0gBoTIwWqJ1Pz7H2T2UlCNyvO/IqKUYYRGMEJ5 LdyA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682329133; x=1684921133; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+ExQ5ltA22gDtFJCuXLqbMOq2/Mg/6A/sd41bOl0ZQg=; b=dSrZrdghcVQjuJXZwHm+oQtq9/0NzkIxPzTowQGZuuD02HZmmc3WIQjFMgmdg+7Ogp d1ALIS2dJHgHkybNcd4bLP7b1arLU+uZ5IYENyP6JP1PSAtH6/h3u8291fzshSHB4lIh +V4soI1DvLQafoojymjMeUm6s1XnKPQJkT9urZWl35b5SsBaYvChSsnPCp9PqoaVs23z PRmzQICxJ0iufjTJrlLsMcAmdgrEp/rcQLcDqGCoKaLL5LHkgEIdtuaoc+TRGi7j7mjf KNZy7eS5+Gd4EeCZsPkEk1g+uUES9bQn0vY7AjYmeae2kcIzIClJatc98hjaZiYxxqhw jD2A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ejQzsTgwTwmYSoD70QUG580nQDCdMPRh0H1Uq0Yfr7Tdme3r+N HFS61is078hXlT771xg5w/4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Yn0Cy9ws4+x5Qe+uckuZKnB8zjOaVVVSmiPopslOHRhR4/+/AeM1UnBS+alSxPGFmrE5awqg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e268:0:b0:2f5:9aa2:e5fc with SMTP id bl40-20020adfe268000000b002f59aa2e5fcmr8520564wrb.28.1682329133327; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 02:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rltb ([82.66.8.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p10-20020a5d48ca000000b003047dc162f7sm1122038wrs.67.2023.04.24.02.38.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 24 Apr 2023 02:38:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Pluim To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:57:43 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qk9d8lj.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 11:38:51 +0200 Message-ID: <87o7ndbowk.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Jim Porter , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." , Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii , Lars Ingebrigtsen 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 (-) >>>>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:57:43 +0100, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora said: >> I use eglot on emacs-29, but have never installed it (and I never run >> emacs-28 any more :-)) >>=20 Jo=C3=A3o> Also noted. Eglot on Emacs 29 is generally the most stable v= ersion of it Jo=C3=A3o> you can get. However is has less features. Expect the gap to= grow with Jo=C3=A3o> time. Some fringe LSP servers are also better supported on l= ater versions. There are too many things going on to attempt to keep up to date with them all :-) Jo=C3=A3o> If you never use package-install on Eglot, then there's even= less reason to Jo=C3=A3o> worry about my patch, which only affects Eglot. Jo=C3=A3o> (Meaning, FTR, that we're still missing an account from at l= east one user Jo=C3=A3o> who would be perturbed by my patch.) Jo=C3=A3o> Robert, do you use package-install at all? On what packages? Explicitly in my init file, no. The only package installation and upgrading I do is via `list-packages', for the usual suspects like magit and helm. And even that I do reluctantly, since something always seems to break. Robert --=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 07:43:45 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 11:43:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47707 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqubg-0000Su-TX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:43:45 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-f53.google.com ([209.85.160.53]:45235) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pquba-0000SO-0x for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:43:38 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-187ec6a5504so3357158fac.2 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 04:43:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682336612; x=1684928612; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=hPMQydYl9zTJVFlxFt+bbY34vQ3B09Z4WRLX83HMTdc=; b=FZIzcpR1WbsM6dgdKT84oc7OjcJqbz4X/0hZ9HpZ5w2mJRPudLRCXg90q/GfwldsIS T7t7djg4VSEJfOAvaawnTYhMDZlVRscdvffG529+scolmq5gBaanjmpULAuRsHkktvb0 IcwUNzEH9u0vXMXYHAAQx9qz7xLYSvTeWqi7hQCisuMZ6My9v/T3iQbn0Onw1j0lg9Ro WwE4shXsg5Z12pjh1ajk5/pM3D3U2HqHD0VaTKZj55sG/AoBrI0BtIsnAYUi38NCte/1 YV88qXkjkOrMsBb/ly5FtXn0zpf9gfiA/z/1HRPu+sbZMNBWEDyKSwoSovkRl3yrvORF bSfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682336612; x=1684928612; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hPMQydYl9zTJVFlxFt+bbY34vQ3B09Z4WRLX83HMTdc=; b=e9AO9xgrqnhPRrbWxmnlhpZDOHY/16TVspOhJfjBfUlG7bkq2sb6wNLFLl4J6QEZQP YWb8l9Fjp5D3kS8qvV4rNjBfdGKA7iIk5JSJt7pT8/w64/53YiTw7KOBgOKcBsexj5xk JR3m8A2aywVO3SlfuJrdJMDPtWuaForGEWL8EBHt0+6HhODKODY77FSVVByKtsl4b/G0 74gZHybANu+jUo2TFN8ElsytJGaLlCV707sv6mU23B5QTuvSbaZkP0kduz8mwcrD0YKq Xn4Uj8UPy86udUf9UPfyUnLaO/+aiQTJD+UTJqAeOrVxK8Rb85cRoImkiX9uzlydehDw UkFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dT33AQcJqVkikqNXm+K9U4XHzTnMOXfCrXeJi7BNpyVLnx+k0T iBP2nJwShCxV5jCzpsuOFfvu6Mplv0vAbd9NsSo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YE44yKSvsAxX3Z2k8WNVzyJAQ0j8teu/IRJiBmgRlTrw0s1qx2YN2VK0KzJS9UNHsNaQ9lly0IQGl58ocHVn4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:b512:b0:17a:b55f:eda4 with SMTP id v18-20020a056870b51200b0017ab55feda4mr8390987oap.24.1682336612224; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 04:43:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qk9d8lj.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7ndbowk.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87o7ndbowk.fsf@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 12:43:21 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Robert Pluim Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Jim Porter , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." , Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii , Lars Ingebrigtsen 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 (-) On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 10:38=E2=80=AFAM Robert Pluim wr= ote: > > >>>>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:57:43 +0100, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora said: > >> I use eglot on emacs-29, but have never installed it (and I never = run > >> emacs-28 any more :-)) > >> > > Jo=C3=A3o> Also noted. Eglot on Emacs 29 is generally the most stable= version of it > Jo=C3=A3o> you can get. However is has less features. Expect the gap = to grow with > Jo=C3=A3o> time. Some fringe LSP servers are also better supported on= later versions. > > There are too many things going on to attempt to keep up to date with > them all :-) Perfectly reasonable. It would be rather unwise to force a newer version of Eglot on you. Do let me know if you find any bugs in the Emacs 29 eglot.el, which is version 1.12.29. The pretest is here for that. > Jo=C3=A3o> If you never use package-install on Eglot, then there's ev= en less reason to > Jo=C3=A3o> worry about my patch, which only affects Eglot. > > Jo=C3=A3o> (Meaning, FTR, that we're still missing an account from at= least one user > Jo=C3=A3o> who would be perturbed by my patch.) > > Jo=C3=A3o> Robert, do you use package-install at all? On what package= s? > > Explicitly in my init file, no. The only package installation and > upgrading I do is via `list-packages', for the usual suspects like > magit and helm. And even that I do reluctantly, since something always > seems to break. That's likely something to bring up with the maintainers of said packages (which aren't GNU ELPA btw). I don't even use them (I use stock VC and stock M-x fido-vertical-mode). But do you have any suspicion if that is related to upgrade of dependencies, or -- more to the point of this bug report -- to upgrade of :core dependencies? Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 07:58:43 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 11:58:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47728 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pquqB-00012h-8d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:58:43 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47138) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pquq8-00012U-GD for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:58:41 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pquq3-0005CM-1p; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:58:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=MSqnEWQPeDf5U/ZQoHWGrAko38N7n++NAkK7fYJd4bk=; b=GTFIlp/S4EFB NPRv3N677JBrfibfN0XPsknFIGtFdmvvoCPOeic/F6d+WZknEIQU3tirEbA8CsdxpvOo+KOGubVta cWpluwqtgs6StAflTMcNL+WAo5zDpQUe0P+jBez5BfZuLqOmDxI05RekH9QoYTaVS/IDCsU1QXQOW vuR/jygGaTWHq7NtJQaqrAZefWKcIEOGXFxE5FB/rR5XW5KUaSfT1PRgZJLSC8to1UU2pzq9tIPxW 9qfEU8vr1bQp1f2jSVt7JK3qoUbzYXg/trz1roX88qHsUph0dnm3dEa2S2xB4/X0Ilb6wDAa4tekv WE16IpGpSm6cmR7hTa+tEg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pquq2-0004TC-BR; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:58:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:58:58 +0300 Message-Id: <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:53:30 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:53:30 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 23/04/2023 17:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:11:44 +0300 > >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > >> joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > >> From: Dmitry Gutov > >> > >>>> It addressed two last points from your previous email, obviously. > >>> Which points are those? Please help me identify them. > >> > >> These two: > >> > >> > There is already such an option, added as part of fixing this bug. > >> > >> The binding was added, so now we straight away delegate to package-install. > > > > I meant to give the user the control on whether package-update will > > update built-in packages, like we did with package-install: either via > > prefix argument or by customizing the user option. > > That would be a different change, though. > > So what are we guarding against here? That the user will choose a > built-in package to upgrade by accident? Yes. Also, against invocations of this command from other commands and from the menu. > And we'll show her an error, saying "use the prefix argument"? No, I think we'll do whatever the code does today when passed a built-in package. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 09:02:08 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 13:02:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47804 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqvpY-0005FU-BM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:02:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f49.google.com ([209.85.221.49]:60700) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqvpX-0005F8-9k for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:02:07 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f49.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-2fbb99cb297so3992949f8f.1 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:02:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682341321; x=1684933321; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=0AmJ6eMvHjk/LUA5OiMVvbDgpIWvxMB1ZnRQU5fvTjU=; b=QY/9Diu0zF4Hy4Pl+RAE+0XaJjtwkci8cski5NAeY7VX3dt5wxZjqfZ9fP4xHdsydR dO4is1vh96nxiwXFTxVVLdZu933YrPzftt5oTza0Tyf0EYLm/S+JESYbJMx6YvMrKB2p ZVi1YWKBZG8NdF+yrP74cJAWL5FRHN23eJwzYxjLOYisGVGsI4o94g8tEa0DbYf+x0hL 4NapUEcBOtQPiLW10hxw3NqT6ugqDfVmgnkborStrKwJlZZUNH0Cpu0+NOWuG4GJs66F Rk7TIhBJgFLIyYblSUroi83oSnQ6yh8392porCWIg+8lt7NUlh4p5XgfIQLxbV922ssJ 5fqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682341321; x=1684933321; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=0AmJ6eMvHjk/LUA5OiMVvbDgpIWvxMB1ZnRQU5fvTjU=; b=ShCRyCnOBdew94zOv+Y1gmKewn+2jtHN8u3jUP49Mh3okwBNerjU1uOkl/PSsQFtjW FoDa/t5frVQ5/C9/YWj4QJSbMyW8EQGQ8nPAfq2inVopF884ANVRLYEU1SF5rhvpT6Y2 o7JUCV5mDRFkl9OxAazZwdhZSdOjqC95kfYCxAZKWGLsDeYISapa2i0uRqGbo8GGZRdu stbelKE6Q4b9Ud31ExlYirg3cf4989FMzQ9shA53pvk2F5vRIlKY9vj4h5c0VQO9KzGM yNtKuO8upSqCgWralXoP92JajmDd2y6i56iQ1sIdPQTvpRdWujGvCHJgnkeROZXM0vb3 URbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fXUesIp7sAo6mMFb9EmC0ru/9KOPGLwmF5BOHDCjrnIsqKj5oc Xo7FJTcPKg2BR7BEjbLM+Fk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YG8jlhahmszehQlzusSPrpmZZ7k+Eb1z4GFFoRoRjc5a5ykeHKVyNyNqOIYn5egmJiuzoVVg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f14c:0:b0:2ff:f37:9d1a with SMTP id y12-20020adff14c000000b002ff0f379d1amr9923913wro.62.1682341321377; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rltb ([82.66.8.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y4-20020adffa44000000b002f013fb708fsm10895374wrr.4.2023.04.24.06.02.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:02:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Pluim To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora=22's?= message of "Mon, 24 Apr 2023 12:43:21 +0100") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qk9d8lj.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7ndbowk.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:01:59 +0200 Message-ID: <87bkjdbfi0.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Jim Porter , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." , Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii , Lars Ingebrigtsen 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 (-) >>>>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 12:43:21 +0100, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora said: Jo=C3=A3o> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 10:38=E2=80=AFAM Robert Pluim wrote: >>=20 >> >>>>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:57:43 +0100, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora said: >> >> I use eglot on emacs-29, but have never installed it (and I never= run >> >> emacs-28 any more :-)) >> >> >>=20 Jo=C3=A3o> Also noted. Eglot on Emacs 29 is generally the most stable v= ersion of it Jo=C3=A3o> you can get. However is has less features. Expect the gap to= grow with Jo=C3=A3o> time. Some fringe LSP servers are also better supported on l= ater versions. >>=20 >> There are too many things going on to attempt to keep up to date with >> them all :-) Jo=C3=A3o> Perfectly reasonable. It would be rather unwise to force a = newer Jo=C3=A3o> version of Eglot on you. Do let me know if you find any bug= s in Jo=C3=A3o> the Emacs 29 eglot.el, which is version 1.12.29. The pretest= is here Jo=C3=A3o> for that. I will, although I use clangd which I suspect is pretty heavily tested anyway. >> Explicitly in my init file, no. The only package installation and >> upgrading I do is via `list-packages', for the usual suspects like >> magit and helm. And even that I do reluctantly, since something alwa= ys >> seems to break. Jo=C3=A3o> That's likely something to bring up with the maintainers of Jo=C3=A3o> said packages (which aren't GNU ELPA btw). I don't even use Jo=C3=A3o> them (I use stock VC and stock M-x fido-vertical-mode). I don=CA=BCt think magit or helm are to blame here. Jo=C3=A3o> But do you have any suspicion if that is related to upgrade = of Jo=C3=A3o> dependencies, or -- more to the point of this bug report -- Jo=C3=A3o> to upgrade of :core dependencies? `list-packages' seems to get confused about which dependent packages need to be uninstalled, and sometimes uninstalls too many (or maybe it fails to upgrade them, I=CA=BCm not sure). I then get errors about 'package bar requires package foo version 1.12, only found 1.11' or similar. Every time it happens I manually install the packages that should not have been uninstalled, and get on with other things, since I don=CA=BCt normally have time to spend on creating a minimal test case. Now you understand why I only upgrade my packages every couple of months. Robert --=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 09:08:47 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 13:08:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47811 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqvvw-0005Oq-Bw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:08:47 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41172) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqvvu-0005Oa-Iw for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:08:43 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqvvn-0005pj-4X; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:08:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=66i/d+Vh+NI0FJVwC2fPvl5ktiEfvmqlkMH4Ta6DdRY=; b=GipITc/azSBPqntYrv2q pG1aQPUq8aJ3RvL1Om75D9pYNhtmWlaiBV3reB1QXWuaNJfsuh1ErdxPqPCy6rxCECCXLxdqmuKru zGbFGlA4flxBBP3Ki2egpefHfIASPDjHxdhHpSR/gRQot1wh8BpdfslblHMOUmTBGe/JG134CYHi7 ycAqvhsePXB6mHMNkOuwxdK4wQ6LOHM22gyCjVeE67W5Mp3HEFt0i/nBR7L1OuQVpgB5/SBKNCm5u 1bVxxHR7d1/5in4JaTMQXornBJcla/VRtmfWeCEPucS2/dP+BVAG+ZaGnhtsiSeAN5OH7WbSup94K AssObDmeatSmvg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqvvm-0004Sr-Ci; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:08:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:08:57 +0300 Message-Id: <837cu1xw9i.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Robert Pluim In-Reply-To: <87bkjdbfi0.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Robert Pluim on Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:01:59 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qk9d8lj.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7ndbowk.fsf@gmail.com> <87bkjdbfi0.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, dmitry@gutov.dev, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > From: Robert Pluim > Cc: Jim Porter , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." > , Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Monnier > , Eli Zaretskii , Lars > Ingebrigtsen > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:01:59 +0200 > > João> But do you have any suspicion if that is related to upgrade of > João> dependencies, or -- more to the point of this bug report -- > João> to upgrade of :core dependencies? > > `list-packages' seems to get confused about which dependent packages > need to be uninstalled, and sometimes uninstalls too many (or maybe it > fails to upgrade them, Iʼm not sure). I then get errors about 'package > bar requires package foo version 1.12, only found 1.11' or similar. This could be related to the fact that I see here some packages as "incompat". Eglot, Flymake, Project, and others are in that category. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 09:13:08 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 13:13:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47821 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqw0C-0005Vk-Gd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:13:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com ([209.85.128.46]:58377) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqw0A-0005VE-16 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:13:07 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f1e2555b5aso9669835e9.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:13:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682341980; x=1684933980; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=t9RD57+JA7/FS9IYF3/oHEfbVA7gNE+YnXvGqivFXYk=; b=ePP0Mfrw7pBoSGsBnvQutVzd1njGcn2/w9G3Az1aATObFFAHYlcdHup/JGVT9RkxQ7 4k+D5YWa11cJlF09xWPObXbSkI36AgFpgBd41PiHW2dL9VPWw/ym4KlWSWMR1tjbWrCZ Kj/C2WZDxhBdK67mEq4OAjNVS0AiPsYc5XqwfcsIACxEkIPsfkqE6QxTFEBnEmpbvgNl HpmMg/jBG9iejDnjhNm7d9CMQxXaunmRiWx6ekfZtn14NmPhucDHyxk+fDpRuSk0kOMO HV3zvf5TT/uiWpq6JMoV24jV3AOpxAUrAS5Io0AoaqnbKxCNS9Hq2CwoqYNhg8owq31x KjMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682341980; x=1684933980; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=t9RD57+JA7/FS9IYF3/oHEfbVA7gNE+YnXvGqivFXYk=; b=XcaKQj5SrQmoJs88e3CZGDeJ1c2d2o4/ckM5WoHDxvZbMrO4IgL9R9afajyefjYD7K i0xb8aSVYGoUzTj/KI1w9NM9ZlOKAe5I6NzeQhuoIl9M6WI42e1dB0I0kIVOpNT1+Bjs fqALcwOSnIQL5jiBSY+zpErgsZudEwu9GelBxu0/Mqi3GwtkhpUMD4+qJO0lGOApQ0Kv 189BfSQLUuspNMeoC+eWewaDQRrKRRCFz2/L93AfjglgwYc421/bC4Lhyvih1W6VBiQk ryQuiSFzCkIXHxlj7/jVh4Pp4y/OJC2M52V+VGn81S8QymIFW6IhnufaEiax562HIUM2 tXrA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fttnD11qH4HGETSjm1VPOu0+cHXYWW1Erjm20EbbSGkHYje3E5 UeK4ItjxHZggamo5Eb8YfxQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZP6nFTmZDB+Eoe+4mMVHzqxQL5J3q+L/UrK7TrbqHbvLIPjmvGhiKmPJOf2UGZ9MU9cXUl6Q== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4c16:0:b0:3f1:9a5a:b444 with SMTP id z22-20020a1c4c16000000b003f19a5ab444mr5144450wmf.15.1682341979818; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rltb ([82.66.8.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l20-20020a05600c16d400b003f19bca8f03sm5525673wmn.43.2023.04.24.06.12.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:12:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Pluim To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <837cu1xw9i.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:08:57 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qk9d8lj.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7ndbowk.fsf@gmail.com> <87bkjdbfi0.fsf@gmail.com> <837cu1xw9i.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:12:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87354pbezp.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, dmitry@gutov.dev, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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 (-) >>>>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:08:57 +0300, Eli Zaretskii said: >> From: Robert Pluim >> Cc: Jim Porter , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Ph= ilip K." >> , Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Monn= ier >> , Eli Zaretskii , Lars >> Ingebrigtsen >> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:01:59 +0200 >>=20 Jo=C3=A3o> But do you have any suspicion if that is related to upgrade = of Jo=C3=A3o> dependencies, or -- more to the point of this bug report -- Jo=C3=A3o> to upgrade of :core dependencies? >>=20 >> `list-packages' seems to get confused about which dependent packages >> need to be uninstalled, and sometimes uninstalls too many (or maybe = it >> fails to upgrade them, I=CA=BCm not sure). I then get errors about '= package >> bar requires package foo version 1.12, only found 1.11' or similar. Eli> This could be related to the fact that I see here some packages as Eli> "incompat". Eglot, Flymake, Project, and others are in that categ= ory. I don=CA=BCt see that, but I do have eg: helm-core 20230317.1729 available melpa Devel= opment files for Helm helm-core 20220425.1625 dependency Devel= opment files for Helm helm-core 20220824.1925 obsolete Devel= opment files for Helm Maybe I should trim my `package-archives' Robert --=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 16:36:26 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 20:36:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50442 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pr2vC-0000Nv-3b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:36:26 -0400 Received: from wnew4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.18]:45489) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pr2vA-0000Nh-GW for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:36:25 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4373E2B06308; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:36:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:36:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682368577; x=1682372177; bh=0EkITudJAZYa6TR1emVmlRtXBwwjKAo5QtD TLhHBSj0=; b=LY+JJmyzTbHrj6bR9qFbzPIrSg3dqw4aH44VPu6I6TVHfA6hRxB WhOW42ImkdYRe5CTtgmbmPbnBA60viOvjQS14idVEH1h24UUamgIRsEz25w+kWeX uBQDif0s3YR6uSm/1udyWlkzrOKnqRYbSIggQrkrIQVPxRdbPWPLGgIs/z8h7ysu /W7ew08UwG5ixUHfLTY4WJfX0G7oKCzWnatBtdSzmZsbjAlLivWgwlUJtkquTZjP BLoXLMLhi1rZtKlYu0pbI7nBuF4q9S1ZyjRJGlxcq0TMVHK4ynDfLyMoj9ByDPx+ TO0Wt9LunM9hoOoGES5CbTfEjAg6eY2DE1w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682368577; x=1682372177; bh=0EkITudJAZYa6TR1emVmlRtXBwwjKAo5QtD TLhHBSj0=; b=MvpgXUuLZSFwV9lZaB3WNSC+z4cc2BGOol4aZ7lS2J0bwwLOzwU eNw+KjrSLS6vL0aLV2SzoY4P3+n8HGBAmB63eGrRTBCEp6Uz2MOVdI9S2G7KkPJT V2xnAs0MFGz1AuT4Y2HOXldZVHqOMyNsa6IybCsBGY31fmdUsJpLmwVoDn1dYq9h +rLq7IbqIXyh85vsVr1bkykySGj2k73M+fc4UjmczlFbXa4n4Uw/j3Dr4CKpfOmS GP51Jv/pK+36/nH/h1V8zuOfw807jZWudKeXkvvOo4BS4XTcRQrrQApLR+j8lJIz S5990QZaMkeHEQZoXeGqgRVOBnVhYlht/qw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedutddgudehudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpefhffehleejffegffeugefhkeektdffgfehjedvgeejtedtudehueffgffg feejheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:36:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 23:36:12 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Robert Pluim , =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qk9d8lj.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7ndbowk.fsf@gmail.com> <87bkjdbfi0.fsf@gmail.com> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <87bkjdbfi0.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Jim Porter , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." , Stefan Monnier , Lars Ingebrigtsen , Eli Zaretskii 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: -2.9 (--) On 24/04/2023 16:01, Robert Pluim wrote: > Every time it happens I manually install the packages that should not > have been uninstalled, and get on with other things, since I donʼt > normally have time to spend on creating a minimal test case. We might have some more bugs with package being removed from package-selected-packages during installation/upgrade. I just found one in 'M-x package-update' (discussed within the context of the patch for it). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 18:46:13 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 22:46:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50617 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pr4wn-0003yM-0e for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 18:46:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f54.google.com ([209.85.210.54]:53600) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pr4wk-0003y9-Iy for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 18:46:11 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6a5e2289965so4158957a34.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:46:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682376365; x=1684968365; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=KNO8NAyMLqC1+HgPDMAxjjO8kc783oj7G+P4TO1TMdE=; b=JIHDO1cruQqBSg0IfakHQc3J43dXShZPsiG2vaioaEz5Z8kO1jfrLWUSu7aaDxml84 GpV0eAMU12JB9+BzRNKYQAgsVmPZKp4IOQycQuYJGamtN16JgRGEnoM89Ojllq9UZWko W+KU+zBjJWLldJepC3mePqSsSvubfPqNM2jg+FZ1xows/xsVUqMqQsfLMAXzMRBfIIqG yKvPYqoRqeX7AZRL1tOgwBObmWGKLPzS2FYOTfiv/mdT8Ks0UwjSDibiLgbbKjOZNL6u LAAWsbNFyPZUGpLTZpXJxYPNuKpf3MtSclQaJpcfP0yQQtnCBpn42T3YO+iI8vdBm6KA LSZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682376365; x=1684968365; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KNO8NAyMLqC1+HgPDMAxjjO8kc783oj7G+P4TO1TMdE=; b=kefW0sR9v0cLWmKKo1WT6MwjW21pwEbryGpEmfZAh07IKt97CIeoCm1osK3IEPB2Dh LKEqunb/DWbFtkBegvE3aiao6N5x0fdov2HYkB19q13iapNAQEoFtP5a9W3s40qRDH3j gshZ8FWihA+Dbvijh04OZroISJKgR2Gt/VknmMZMofszUSrM00tOZ1UzMpXxXomYmV+v XrkdMlfl0ZouDgEzGUyFBkWDRRgL5K9SlvexTmn8zNWbHJI/6WKCYNQKurU1VeASSHYB T4XxR1XqsQqmUMhAVIW2eGmyTSeZopVsEazZ7m6s65bM7KPSugWsr8z5GPitFwAI6cby Lauw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cDD47r9QXNGGamPEMb8GR8hljG+MbFhBx7qllNcyq064JvvRCr 2vloGxdhik99QQstjyy8SFTuJrRuhzOrqXtOJs4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YT/ev/yqrV5dA76WuuIZP2nq7QWXOISlbXu6WWRr005E/W6foVLu2EtjhOvS+425XUeJcbcCLrLY6eZkMpTiE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:807:b0:187:7aa8:3420 with SMTP id q7-20020a056871080700b001877aa83420mr11112790oap.33.1682376364864; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:46:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5z2ctpo.fsf@gmail.com> <871qk9d8lj.fsf@gmail.com> <87o7ndbowk.fsf@gmail.com> <87bkjdbfi0.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87bkjdbfi0.fsf@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 23:45:53 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Robert Pluim Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: Jim Porter , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, "Philip K." , Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Monnier , Eli Zaretskii , Lars Ingebrigtsen 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 (-) On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 2:02=E2=80=AFPM Robert Pluim wro= te: > Now you understand why I only upgrade my packages every couple of > months. It doesn't seem like you have any problems with the packages themselves but rather with a significantly buggy idiosyncratic package management system(s). Jo=C3=A3o From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 24 19:46:00 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 23:46:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50725 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pr5sd-0005oW-JY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:46:00 -0400 Received: from wnew1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.26]:54369) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pr5sc-0005oG-5d for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:45:58 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6CC12B06432; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:45:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1682379950; x=1682383550; bh=VS VW68P9O1/Oa10hRoyP7srH5KO+Em9emASqj5TU0oA=; b=MnxE5DOX+HoiZq73uj pSR2o3nO95Q6ush1HSMqKirwUWQG+wzCcSMdWuv4AS0HcESu4P5XfvQV2B8Ybv6n GuBP3ZJ3ZJB8iD4rRU27CJUYT+JSK3CifEQ22K7xnNzfkfK778E0+cSZrgsp+Rl5 XHtgB+N5hV39Md6x4cL2wYNCjqBT/0duAeeOx/TdBJHPLimCXsMGrWa9SlDjNwcp PYhIZ5C6CSpZW0W15bKlwDccs0yQZ2g86zkBUtmDF0jbiFQJeaGA8+HXCjMeYTB1 GtbNn81FqwV2hyofa+hsVHke0REywMo8F+QPR8D5mgtKUpBq2lyJyPm/A7iK6VJm 13rw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1682379950; x=1682383550; bh=VSVW68P9O1/Oa 10hRoyP7srH5KO+Em9emASqj5TU0oA=; b=VZ6S+1CUm4GSSh7NWK6hgLa9lGyu1 u95uJsPTNXxReUYulr3ElNzP+Ym/VTlQxkhzaG+1GGvEMuWK2ttXOnl+aF+mDT7b VJuRQAx297Ts0fcj3mDqIpXsrt9wpDHS1y+FrALcfcWqzTV8CL8gxTz9Rr28H78w 1zY+XrEq5U+rcmloZhiQQX1A5KRQb4vqx94ZqJm+WbseEWALWAe0A88FncLhKD5k IoVTI5+DjH/pyKaJbJVyNz/QfBXHLZvH3740aL7AWxzRwqP7x2NyqgMxcOjCzx9T O83Bd2zXnDFK98kHEFAqcB3W5gATWYu73rPNhIls3IBXesEIoPjJZYHAA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfeduuddgvdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptgfkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjgesmhdtreertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhmihht rhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeehteekgfetieeujeeuvddtvdelteffleejteduvdefffejieehheeuteffveei jeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegumh hithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:45:48 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------FsAX70WOxfKx4tsPIcDcGXJM" Message-ID: <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 02:45:46 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------FsAX70WOxfKx4tsPIcDcGXJM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 24/04/2023 14:58, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:53:30 +0300 >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >> On 23/04/2023 17:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:11:44 +0300 >>>> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >>>> joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca >>>> From: Dmitry Gutov >>>> >>>>>> It addressed two last points from your previous email, obviously. >>>>> Which points are those? Please help me identify them. >>>> >>>> These two: >>>> >>>> > There is already such an option, added as part of fixing this bug. >>>> >>>> The binding was added, so now we straight away delegate to package-install. >>> >>> I meant to give the user the control on whether package-update will >>> update built-in packages, like we did with package-install: either via >>> prefix argument or by customizing the user option. >> >> That would be a different change, though. >> >> So what are we guarding against here? That the user will choose a >> built-in package to upgrade by accident? > > Yes. Also, against invocations of this command from other commands > and from the menu. It's not in the menu. There are also no known callers aside from package-update-all. >> And we'll show her an error, saying "use the prefix argument"? > > No, I think we'll do whatever the code does today when passed a > built-in package. Very well, here's the next version. It adds a new optional argument to the function (so that people can evaluate e.g. (package-update 'eglot t)). When called interactively, it is determined by current-prefix-argument. Also please review the docstring change. Regarding obeying package-install-upgrade-built-in, I think it would need to be renamed, and both package-update-all and package-menu-mark-upgrades would need to be made obey it too. All that could be done in a subsequent change. --------------FsAX70WOxfKx4tsPIcDcGXJM Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name="package-update-fix.diff" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="package-update-fix.diff" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL2xpc3AvZW1hY3MtbGlzcC9wYWNrYWdlLmVsIGIvbGlzcC9lbWFjcy1s aXNwL3BhY2thZ2UuZWwKaW5kZXggZmZhNjI3MmRkMWYuLmI3MmJmODZjNzczIDEwMDY0NAot LS0gYS9saXNwL2VtYWNzLWxpc3AvcGFja2FnZS5lbAorKysgYi9saXNwL2VtYWNzLWxpc3Av cGFja2FnZS5lbApAQCAtMjI2NiwyMSArMjI2NiwzOSBAQCBwYWNrYWdlLWluc3RhbGwKIChk ZWNsYXJlLWZ1bmN0aW9uIHBhY2thZ2UtdmMtdXBkYXRlICJwYWNrYWdlLXZjIiAocGtnKSkK IAogOzs7IyMjYXV0b2xvYWQKLShkZWZ1biBwYWNrYWdlLXVwZGF0ZSAobmFtZSkKLSAgIlVw ZGF0ZSBwYWNrYWdlIE5BTUUgaWYgYSBuZXdlciB2ZXJzaW9uIGV4aXN0cy4iCisoZGVmdW4g cGFja2FnZS11cGRhdGUgKG5hbWUgJm9wdGlvbmFsIHVwZGF0ZS1idWlsdC1pbnMpCisgICJV cGRhdGUgcGFja2FnZSBOQU1FIGlmIGEgbmV3ZXIgdmVyc2lvbiBleGlzdHMuCisKK09ubHkg cGFja2FnZXMgaW5zdGFsbGVkIGZyb20gRUxQQSBhcmUgYWxsb3dlZCB0byBiZSB1cGRhdGVk IHRoaXMKK3dheS4KKworQnV0IGlmIFVQREFURS1CVUlMVC1JTlMgaXMgbm9uLW5pbCwgb3Ig aWYgdGhlIGNvbW1hbmQgaXMgaW52b2tlZAoraW50ZXJhY3RpdmVseSB3aXRoIGEgcHJlZml4 IGFyZ3VtZW50LCBpdCB3aWxsIGFsbG93IHVwZ3JhZGluZyBvZgorYWN0aXZlIGJ1aWx0LWlu IHBhY2thZ2VzLiIKICAgKGludGVyYWN0aXZlCiAgICAobGlzdCAoY29tcGxldGluZy1yZWFk Ci0gICAgICAgICAgIlVwZGF0ZSBwYWNrYWdlOiAiIChwYWNrYWdlLS11cGRhdGVhYmxlLXBh Y2thZ2VzKSBuaWwgdCkpKQorICAgICAgICAgICJVcGRhdGUgcGFja2FnZTogIiAocGFja2Fn ZS0tdXBkYXRlYWJsZS1wYWNrYWdlcworICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg Y3VycmVudC1wcmVmaXgtYXJnKQorICAgICAgICAgIG5pbCB0KQorICAgICAgICAgY3VycmVu dC1wcmVmaXgtYXJnKSkKICAgKGxldCogKChwYWNrYWdlIChpZiAoc3ltYm9scCBuYW1lKQog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIG5hbWUKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKGludGVy biBuYW1lKSkpCi0gICAgICAgICAocGtnLWRlc2MgKGNhZHIgKGFzc3EgcGFja2FnZSBwYWNr YWdlLWFsaXN0KSkpKQotICAgIChpZiAocGFja2FnZS12Yy1wIHBrZy1kZXNjKQorICAgICAg ICAgKHBrZy1kZXNjIChjYWRyIChhc3NxIHBhY2thZ2UgcGFja2FnZS1hbGlzdCkpKQorICAg ICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtaW5zdGFsbC11cGdyYWRlLWJ1aWx0LWluIChhbmQKKyAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgdXBkYXRlLWJ1aWx0LWlucwor ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAobm90IHBrZy1k ZXNjKSkpKQorICAgIDs7IGBwa2ctZGVzYycgd2lsbCBiZSBuaWwgd2hlbiB0aGUgcGFja2Fn ZSBpcyBhbiAiYWN0aXZlIGJ1aWx0LWluIi4KKyAgICAoaWYgKGFuZCBwa2ctZGVzYyAocGFj a2FnZS12Yy1wIHBrZy1kZXNjKSkKICAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtdmMtdXBkYXRlIHBrZy1k ZXNjKQotICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtZGVsZXRlIHBrZy1kZXNjICdmb3JjZSkKLSAgICAgIChw YWNrYWdlLWluc3RhbGwgcGFja2FnZSAnZG9udC1zZWxlY3QpKSkpCi0KLShkZWZ1biBwYWNr YWdlLS11cGRhdGVhYmxlLXBhY2thZ2VzICgpCisgICAgICAod2hlbiBwa2ctZGVzYworICAg ICAgICAocGFja2FnZS1kZWxldGUgcGtnLWRlc2MgJ2ZvcmNlICdub3NhdmUpKQorICAgICAg KHBhY2thZ2UtaW5zdGFsbCBwYWNrYWdlCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDs7IEFu IGFjdGl2ZSBidWlsdC1pbiBoYXMgbmV2ZXIgYmVlbiAic2VsZWN0ZWQiCisgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIDs7IGJlZm9yZS4gIE1hcmsgaXQgYXMgaW5zdGFsbGVkIGV4cGxpY2l0 bHkuCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChhbmQgcGtnLWRlc2MgJ2RvbnQtc2VsZWN0 KSkpKSkKKworKGRlZnVuIHBhY2thZ2UtLXVwZGF0ZWFibGUtcGFja2FnZXMgKCZvcHRpb25h bCBhbGxvdy1idWlsdGlucykKICAgOzsgSW5pdGlhbGl6ZSB0aGUgcGFja2FnZSBzeXN0ZW0g dG8gZ2V0IHRoZSBsaXN0IG9mIHBhY2thZ2UKICAgOzsgc3ltYm9scyBmb3IgY29tcGxldGlv bi4KICAgKHBhY2thZ2UtLWFyY2hpdmVzLWluaXRpYWxpemUpCkBAIC0yMjkxLDExICsyMzA5 LDIxIEBAIHBhY2thZ2UtLXVwZGF0ZWFibGUtcGFja2FnZXMKICAgICAgIChvciAobGV0ICgo YXZhaWxhYmxlCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChhc3NxIChjYXIgZWx0KSBwYWNrYWdlLWFy Y2hpdmUtY29udGVudHMpKSkKICAgICAgICAgICAgIChhbmQgYXZhaWxhYmxlCi0gICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICh2ZXJzaW9uLWxpc3QtPAotICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2Ut ZGVzYy12ZXJzaW9uIChjYWRyIGVsdCkpCi0gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAocGFja2FnZS1k ZXNjLXZlcnNpb24gKGNhZHIgYXZhaWxhYmxlKSkpKSkKLSAgICAgICAgICAocGFja2FnZS12 Yy1wIChjYWRyIChhc3NxIChjYXIgZWx0KSBwYWNrYWdlLWFsaXN0KSkpKSkKLSAgICBwYWNr YWdlLWFsaXN0KSkpCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChvciAoYW5kCisgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgYWxsb3ctYnVpbHRpbnMKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAobm90IChw YWNrYWdlLWRlc2MtdmVyc2lvbiAoY2FkciBlbHQpKSkpCisgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAodmVyc2lvbi1saXN0LTwKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAocGFja2FnZS1kZXNj LXZlcnNpb24gKGNhZHIgZWx0KSkKKyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAocGFja2FnZS1k ZXNjLXZlcnNpb24gKGNhZHIgYXZhaWxhYmxlKSkpKSkpCisgICAgICAgICAgKHBhY2thZ2Ut dmMtcCAoY2FkciBlbHQpKSkpCisgICAgKGlmIGFsbG93LWJ1aWx0aW5zCisgICAgICAgIChh cHBlbmQgcGFja2FnZS1hbGlzdAorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIChtYXBjYW4KKyAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgKGxhbWJkYSAoZWx0KQorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICh3aGVuIChub3Qg KGFzc3EgKGNhciBlbHQpIHBhY2thZ2UtYWxpc3QpKQorICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg KGxpc3QgKGxpc3QgKGNhciBlbHQpIChwYWNrYWdlLS1mcm9tLWJ1aWx0aW4gZWx0KSkpKSkK KyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgcGFja2FnZS0tYnVpbHRpbnMpKQorICAgICAgcGFja2FnZS1h bGlzdCkpKSkKIAogOzs7IyMjYXV0b2xvYWQKIChkZWZ1biBwYWNrYWdlLXVwZGF0ZS1hbGwg KCZvcHRpb25hbCBxdWVyeSkK --------------FsAX70WOxfKx4tsPIcDcGXJM-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 25 03:47:26 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Apr 2023 07:47:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51113 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prDOY-0002rf-5Q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 03:47:26 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45824) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prDOV-0002rS-AY for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 03:47:24 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prDOP-0006yq-Bf; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 03:47:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=srcGxmzf+clR/RF8BNOotzimORk2HPhRJy75WY75TWI=; b=gropLGjfnqjGajiihvuF LSVupouD1d+VRtHsVD9w19BPncAiJ9EK2TOen73/D+r60DEDdVv+Q0+nK5xc1FjnBgXiiw6QKzVuI xFOV0sGTcXO4+L+igfDYSq2GS1nkTJfl6gS/cTyheyKe1iMXCZ+FgoOXHxQKuFkzphg6NYeZrwTxB SuZGbwP3ne8PWhVRXt4XrzWWB/rWZuSfyNCG8IsyiccJzVmpbSWgDMVGPWVgM3W76lBjD4yjNbky1 kxrZ/e5nwsSjZZF4KeJsGFPFkyOHudcPKbfwtsDMhVTkC0l4FID0eJeCtGbtsh6m2jOs5eVAwESLW bU08JEB06fwh2A==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prDOO-0006wg-RF; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 03:47:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:47:41 +0300 Message-Id: <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Tue, 25 Apr 2023 02:45:46 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 02:45:46 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > >> So what are we guarding against here? That the user will choose a > >> built-in package to upgrade by accident? > > > > Yes. Also, against invocations of this command from other commands > > and from the menu. > > It's not in the menu. There's this: runs the command package-menu-mark-upgrades (found in package-menu-mode-map), which is an interactive byte-compiled Lisp function in ‘package.el’. It is bound to U. (package-menu-mark-upgrades) Mark all upgradable packages in the Package Menu. For each installed package with a newer version available, place an (I)nstall flag on the available version and a (D)elete flag on the installed version. A subsequent x call will upgrade the package. I also envision that we will at some point have an "upgrade" menu item, because it make little sense to have this command, but not to be able to invoke it from the menu. > There are also no known callers aside from package-update-all. One caller is enough, IMO. > Very well, here's the next version. It adds a new optional argument to > the function (so that people can evaluate e.g. (package-update 'eglot > t)). When called interactively, it is determined by current-prefix-argument. Thanks, this is very close to what I had in mind. The only thing that is missing is the support for user option, which should then avoid the need to invoke the command with a prefix argument. > Also please review the docstring change. It looks OK to me. > Regarding obeying package-install-upgrade-built-in, I think it would > need to be renamed, and both package-update-all and > package-menu-mark-upgrades would need to be made obey it too. All that > could be done in a subsequent change. If the option will affect more than just package-install, it should indeed be renamed. > -(defun package-update (name) > - "Update package NAME if a newer version exists." > +(defun package-update (name &optional update-built-ins) > + "Update package NAME if a newer version exists. > + > +Only packages installed from ELPA are allowed to be updated this > +way. I'm not sure I understand where this restriction comes from. Did the original code enforce it? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 25 08:08:28 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Apr 2023 12:08:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51564 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prHT9-0004ua-Fw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:08:28 -0400 Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.221]:55563) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prHT7-0004uJ-QX for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:08:26 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6F1581E20; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:08:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682424500; x=1682428100; bh=yIzudCmLVSntqrPErydLnG7EPvgg1zdkYQD MPfc6hO0=; b=GQNrYbQ3+2S8/41mD7DCykoy0Tgjunaa4HKdtR7o8A2kwMRB2Pi 9O6oApwAv+a97AGa3PxjrTKs4tEcSXZ5pd9t179YHZBDnTnzGDrcApaCxaAUoJBe dYgk1n4N5PBG68+jezWNUM1E5M63Cue5rugKUbVIQC4uFONhbq0YK4QW3fc3I/Aj bWm/Apel+KE5WrrkpSw/WtWcMpFTemrKdK/VuRQ7U4Lk7VXI+V+yf96JokZbx/lx //HzxPIEQZsvDabfPEY9Q2G4fdtG9/XX9z8f4hp8ziuYBgMT81cFBCEGVIV3PAbS LgSQAZT1mBg8B0Fb2qu4FDIqIO9WrDyD2fw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682424500; x=1682428100; bh=yIzudCmLVSntqrPErydLnG7EPvgg1zdkYQD MPfc6hO0=; b=IyayXHw1BEviJnwX+MT6mFpSIwuOH3asdnNxhwvxI9RTH6L7Du3 P6gp4zl+Gi0aqXZL5jgPT4vnWNk93SlK61JnA8VLrpGQ8M+Y39Nm1jaeY5wQ9yKU yb8BOCx4uPu0wnGmtJOVni1Khv3otK1zU8+EEy5oid9G+E0RosWLCBqm44u9w5X2 SN2NLhPTZluod6gcuSbO4jBxzCIA6jUutL0bXVtmKwF4FVIWpe0kMirCZ2HfDyNh /oEi0EKN7Rhzc16D9CzcTu/1941SuYJnahJHTMaJ9FnWoHMCSdmLlohdZMGAN1au qi4LxPEPUctS6U3rKRQivU/VyZSuKnZaylA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfeduvddggeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepjeffteelgfeiheelueejvdeutddtueegieegveevtdefhfduffetteeihfef hfevnecuffhomhgrihhnpegvlhdrihhtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:08:15 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.8 (--) On 25/04/2023 10:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 02:45:46 +0300 >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >>>> So what are we guarding against here? That the user will choose a >>>> built-in package to upgrade by accident? >>> >>> Yes. Also, against invocations of this command from other commands >>> and from the menu. >> >> It's not in the menu. > > There's this: > > runs the command > package-menu-mark-upgrades (found in package-menu-mode-map), which is > an interactive byte-compiled Lisp function in ‘package.el’. > > It is bound to U. > > (package-menu-mark-upgrades) > > Mark all upgradable packages in the Package Menu. > For each installed package with a newer version available, place > an (I)nstall flag on the available version and a (D)elete flag on > the installed version. A subsequent x > call will upgrade the package. package-menu-mark-upgrades does not delegate to package-update, for better or worse. As discussed previously, if we're going to change its behavior (of package-menu-mark-upgrades), we *will* hide that behind the pref. > I also envision that we will at some point have an "upgrade" menu > item, because it make little sense to have this command, but not to be > able to invoke it from the menu. We might. But since that will only happen in the future, by that time there won't be any users who are accustomed to using that menu item and thus possibly inconvenienced by the change in behavior. >> Very well, here's the next version. It adds a new optional argument to >> the function (so that people can evaluate e.g. (package-update 'eglot >> t)). When called interactively, it is determined by current-prefix-argument. > > Thanks, this is very close to what I had in mind. The only thing that > is missing is the support for user option, which should then avoid the > need to invoke the command with a prefix argument. > >> Also please review the docstring change. > > It looks OK to me. > >> -(defun package-update (name) >> - "Update package NAME if a newer version exists." >> +(defun package-update (name &optional update-built-ins) >> + "Update package NAME if a newer version exists. >> + >> +Only packages installed from ELPA are allowed to be updated this >> +way. > > I'm not sure I understand where this restriction comes from. Did the > original code enforce it? I'm not sure what you mean about "enforce it". That's the essence of the bug here: this function's inability to upgrade built-in packages (packages installed not from ELPA). Since you are asking to keep that behavior by default, it now needs to be documented. >> Regarding obeying package-install-upgrade-built-in, I think it would >> need to be renamed, and both package-update-all and >> package-menu-mark-upgrades would need to be made obey it too. All that >> could be done in a subsequent change. > > If the option will affect more than just package-install, it should > indeed be renamed. That will require some more work. On package-menu-mark-upgrades in particular. TBH, I'm getting more doubts about this change now. What will we do in Emacs 30? If we add the new argument, it will be hard to back out of it, to default to the proper behavior. Perhaps we should just wait and then fix it on master properly. Workarounds exist, after all. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 25 08:10:14 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Apr 2023 12:10:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51568 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prHUs-0004xU-7L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:10:14 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:44265) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prHUp-0004xC-Ch for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:10:12 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6a5f765d595so3933782a34.0 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:10:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682424605; x=1685016605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=TwbSNtHOWA+qt1kwjovHneBZOr8tF7MstNpgnI5txo0=; b=IHnVGrcZTMy+ETAfRRN/gBruIve1z3x2thqSX3TTrBuYX1O1gbiMKDntrpM1JHNjqQ 2eSjUqHt8tH/sj5QskRVb56vrhM/HvJ5FyrB0MUFCFGd6cqSMOxnDpvsH6xgm8301aBV Yqjm9CLfZUP4UvR/Bh1YH4DZvPY/kNPiA+QAo20dSkfLTHbIgPkMtE8tCJrMkqlNBnEE KuyOx3Q0XN1uIKjlf56NCds/hPgDDxNSiBUJp0aDgoc7OnebfqNgxWQwY57JI3Bg5Nj6 1Y1gU7zOx3a5WzvsV33e/uxXBgoRIU65hJScu9lnC0mbthDuKodRNAusXF1oFXzustrw DpDw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682424605; x=1685016605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=TwbSNtHOWA+qt1kwjovHneBZOr8tF7MstNpgnI5txo0=; b=L7Y8Exg2NxWmP+V6zDGF1PIB2jUKdUtfuk/q8/tSbEr+GSPADB1XHKE56gsF/hMaO7 WFJcHwBcyp7e7uf5bnpXUBO1NrIvkYv+P4LC948bxoTXIZeIO20nZxMyWBapFD6OENC7 4kJDZxfqegYpquY7aKFccwUiy6A0BvagEDGb0j15pqI+fX+blmLPxCdg7hgT+rMYjR0r AA+aPLZi0JV7qBKdNTISV4ouYFheR8wR2biAGLjBB2SXnjHnLQQBcxqXNJC1hsDn0voS qf6ZNEkVj7JTUVyYVl/t0kJXkEBp1/O9wBKEVvBqdowI44jU2rTDKBvUltPbJ4lXQxbh 2pZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dT5yM259ymkny9JaQbw6+XTbg4PoLTvl2G9ArqFlzYNGlUoTL4 J16vnR8Go2eSF87SXeDR29VJvE4yVU9+oC3eiy0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bYMOYJ5NQ1iEw/XsC29YNLdFEcjKOJxq+kZbgeXkEZJtW1Yck0ymOUf6YPT8VCAdxc8z9bmMNB118FoQiZJBg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:10cc:b0:384:3a60:e2de with SMTP id s12-20020a05680810cc00b003843a60e2demr9731566ois.29.1682424605523; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:10:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:12:06 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot To: Dmitry Gutov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.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 (-) > Perhaps we should just wait and then fix it on master properly. > Workarounds exist, after all. +1 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 25 08:24:24 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Apr 2023 12:24:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51584 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prHiZ-0005Ip-Uj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:24:24 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:32837) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prHiV-0005IY-UG for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:24:23 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D58A2404F7 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:24:13 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1682425454; bh=/GaPWyLm5mFZUO2Ydf9hujG2zK3fDNpITLN4l11OHGs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=TTcy7xPFqC5YRPqVDO7yH474P3YjApNRxYe3BuxPOet1bn9r3D9KAYUyVlLLQaaOj LhE9CQFwGnMYuLsxxc2KixYcU10F5lm/D5yCy5r19OzJvHr5JGD+PCbHLQJcgDT+3m ayzUdaGi04E/xtv3C+gyZa3xtnk/ey9OkCTBFPJWa+ankcqT81tlQZtnsC/H4llBI/ ReWiuJq/sBwNYpxZzRzr+89G+ES4wDiZ1ehaRCYuMlICBeTj9JWAFcOvc65lgouS/o LcEKq/79ys+gZjdzlqMQOA72zqjE8X+2dcXwTyJXBf3BZr5lX5dhZLhwhek9eddqCn NTXRgmD9CirGg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Q5Llc73g8z6tx7; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:24:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Dmitry Gutov Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <952d1e4d-ef80-ae15-ae27-508ec3d68559@gutov.dev> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Sun, 23 Apr 2023 23:56:23 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <87354q92gh.fsf@posteo.net> <952d1e4d-ef80-ae15-ae27-508ec3d68559@gutov.dev> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 12:24:45 +0000 Message-ID: <87cz3sb14i.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) Dmitry Gutov writes: > On 23/04/2023 16:02, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >> Dmitry Gutov writes: >> >>> Philip, >>> >>> On 13/04/2023 21:49, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >>>> + (when (and (or current-prefix-arg package-install-upgrade-built-in) >>>> + (package--active-built-in-p pkg)) >>>> + (setq pkg (cadr (assq name package-archive-contents)))) >>> >>> How sure are you that the first element in (cdr (assq name >>> package-archive-contents)) will contain the latest version? >> This is not certain, but the same approach is used in other places >> in >> package.el, so I just stocked to it. > > Perhaps they conceal latent bugs as well. I don't know the codebase > too well, but the places I did examine used the comparison together > with the priority. I will look into this. >>> That's why I came with the more complex way to choose the appropriate >>> package-desc in my latest attempt: >>> >>> (car >>> (last (seq-sort-by #'package-desc-priority-version >>> #'version-list-< >>> (cdr (assq package package-archive-contents))))) >> If we insist on package.el installing the newest version, then this >> would make sense. > > What's the alternative? Upgrading to "some version"? Respect `package-archive-priorities'. >> AFAIK there is no guarantees on the order of packages >> in `package-archive-contents'. This shouldn't be an issue for Eglot, >> but might be one for use-package. > > Ah, it seems they removed it from Melpa, that shouldn't surprise me. Oh, I did not know it was on MELPA in the first place. I haven't been using the archive for a while. > Eglot is in the GNU-devel archive as well, though. So there is some > potential for conflict. Hmm, I guess that is true, but I have never been a fan of advertising the -devel archives for day-to-day usage. >> I would actually pull it out into a >> separate utility function that we would re-use in other places. > > Since I had to drop the respective code from the latest version of the > patch, I guess you could put it in package-install instead. > > A reusable helper is fine, of course, but what are the other places we > would use it at? At any place where (cadr ...) is used, I would assume. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 25 08:43:18 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Apr 2023 12:43:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51641 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prI0s-0005oH-6K for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:43:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52396) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prI0l-0005nz-05 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:43:16 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prI0e-0008Qq-U2; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:43:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=pReijs9rCVnk/WBFOBxi1X9r5JX8wW4Zhiti0EDBJqI=; b=gMLXzY09Dv3s YKpydXKPH51TVg2Xi0sBEqna7dHJ6//NUtUhfE/sHl0IPt7OoKX9YTDSw0HFLyB7Sm/rXLmBMbqdJ KrK6f1krAm8zwf/Y5q6dKuElnqkDK+frtcpUpz3ppFnjQEXpbP4KIK9N0h5V9tElmteEaJ02gaTh/ mOSHOcP8Ykf1U1gdaYdTog3ILLIRsMq0YQFFxjPEjFO/fXzRwaXuO+NwySUzT+IJ+ReT/ddT2HqIA AQQgx2AKD9AEjGrlsT1BGkccu5l0IQjpadFnvGXMBjPEPRj9ZsUaehLBjp9MYYMrCZjDXnQhRf/II uzjEixSCquQCJAoU9irxMQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prI0e-0000aL-Bx; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:43:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:43:30 +0300 Message-Id: <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:08:15 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:08:15 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > >> -(defun package-update (name) > >> - "Update package NAME if a newer version exists." > >> +(defun package-update (name &optional update-built-ins) > >> + "Update package NAME if a newer version exists. > >> + > >> +Only packages installed from ELPA are allowed to be updated this > >> +way. > > > > I'm not sure I understand where this restriction comes from. Did the > > original code enforce it? > > I'm not sure what you mean about "enforce it". That's the essence of the > bug here: this function's inability to upgrade built-in packages > (packages installed not from ELPA). Since you are asking to keep that > behavior by default, it now needs to be documented. Oh, then I misunderstood what that says. I thought is says ELPA as opposed to, say, MELPA. So I think we need to rephrase that. Something like Packages which are part of the Emacs distribution cannot be updated that way. > >> Regarding obeying package-install-upgrade-built-in, I think it would > >> need to be renamed, and both package-update-all and > >> package-menu-mark-upgrades would need to be made obey it too. All that > >> could be done in a subsequent change. > > > > If the option will affect more than just package-install, it should > > indeed be renamed. > > That will require some more work. On package-menu-mark-upgrades in > particular. > > TBH, I'm getting more doubts about this change now. > > What will we do in Emacs 30? If we add the new argument, it will be hard > to back out of it, to default to the proper behavior. I thought that in Emacs 30 we could make the user option be non-nil by default, assuming we will decide not to treat built-in packages specially in this regard. Then the additional argument will become much less important, perhaps for some rare situations or something. > Perhaps we should just wait and then fix it on master properly. > Workarounds exist, after all. I won't object, but I thought you and others wanted to have package-install and package-update to behave consistently in this respect. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 25 14:35:26 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Apr 2023 18:35:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53589 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prNVd-0007KO-HJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:35:25 -0400 Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.229]:51741) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prNVZ-0007K7-Bm for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:35:23 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A25A58243B; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:35:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:35:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682447716; x=1682451316; bh=bvwWm1cXADk6ZVPJKXG+IJ5p8Kd+BwgfNpm TO3kGXa4=; b=T4PY8zM8ZSijYjs5b7xg3txbjibzI6NFyfGYa/eU8QoDUUZmZZt n2BMl+9cvGlQTGTcl6YXH1t/YNoJXmOuaVJfWAF+Y/3goHmQzA4/JE8ioXnRCCQm Cery4H95SUmFyrwu29FwPIA5a7rDB4XoHBBu6hMwDctH2RV8Eu9J2jgsMePiCNPw pPoNQULiQC1A9jgzheuWmz/NKmGoil5rPwuoF2kLUul0yhK0Ezxi9TyeFTYn29I1 Y/+LS4U9yuimq6CkHtIC1p9XJL2IS8W0eSSYIfAnfAdNl6MfnPV1NMImTiaPvNiX b6bY0MK0LEp3MhuEUSCBmzSeydvan7YZswA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682447716; x=1682451316; bh=bvwWm1cXADk6ZVPJKXG+IJ5p8Kd+BwgfNpm TO3kGXa4=; b=YuZwQVQutETyBuf9wwwOmfAxGdr9Ir4d0R4npQYUn9/MMxKou3v slewJJAhYyIBzCTDf+4fBpr10692ca92eII1g9vlME1OJ5xUFpyptKayW0lZqnSG Mos52DJx7BQbYdsdm50XzorIzkaZebSW83QLhGSkRlZF4WVE9sDtfB8j1AVvfQ3D Di7ZSGhCS0tJNMydaN8kS4e+1SMl4KFJquL3cvrd9VxWa8CUt+xHBc2EjhOvTVhU 3t8WITAR0RFaIDUGX86eqxXcJyj0cxpgSwjiQN0jAQeLvAtvG9zuGIap00A0SN1o n929+ReAG7trVQOt0sIE4TmSZPFw0rmTrKw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfeduvddguddvjecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfevfhfhjggtgfesthejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepffhm ihhtrhihucfiuhhtohhvuceoughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeigfetveehveevffehledtueekieeikeeufeegudfgfeeghfdulefgfeev ledvveenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe gumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:35:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:35:11 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) On 25/04/2023 15:43, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:08:15 +0300 >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >>>> -(defun package-update (name) >>>> - "Update package NAME if a newer version exists." >>>> +(defun package-update (name &optional update-built-ins) >>>> + "Update package NAME if a newer version exists. >>>> + >>>> +Only packages installed from ELPA are allowed to be updated this >>>> +way. >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand where this restriction comes from. Did the >>> original code enforce it? >> >> I'm not sure what you mean about "enforce it". That's the essence of the >> bug here: this function's inability to upgrade built-in packages >> (packages installed not from ELPA). Since you are asking to keep that >> behavior by default, it now needs to be documented. > > Oh, then I misunderstood what that says. I thought is says ELPA as > opposed to, say, MELPA. No, just ELPA in general. > So I think we need to rephrase that. Something like > > Packages which are part of the Emacs distribution cannot be updated > that way. This is probably better. As long as we understand it to read "packages which are part ... and were never upgraded to a version from ELPA". >> >> Regarding obeying package-install-upgrade-built-in, I think it would >> >> need to be renamed, and both package-update-all and >> >> package-menu-mark-upgrades would need to be made obey it too. All that >> >> could be done in a subsequent change. >> > >> > If the option will affect more than just package-install, it should >> > indeed be renamed. >> >> That will require some more work. On package-menu-mark-upgrades in >> particular. >> >> TBH, I'm getting more doubts about this change now. >> >> What will we do in Emacs 30? If we add the new argument, it will be hard >> to back out of it, to default to the proper behavior. > > I thought that in Emacs 30 we could make the user option be non-nil by > default, assuming we will decide not to treat built-in packages > specially in this regard. Then the additional argument will become > much less important, perhaps for some rare situations or something. It would remain an odd vestige, and it might be difficult to repurpose for something more useful (e.g. being able to pick a specific version to upgrade/downgrade to?) >> Perhaps we should just wait and then fix it on master properly. >> Workarounds exist, after all. > > I won't object, but I thought you and others wanted to have > package-install and package-update to behave consistently in this > respect. Having package-install and package-update behave the same was never the goal, at least not for me. Quite the opposite: package-install doesn't install anything when the package is already installed (and the argument is a package name symbol, which is the case for interactive invocations). package-update/upgrade, OTOH, is supposed to upgrade already installed packages. Which I'm assuming is the category we are going to assign the built-ins to, after all. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 26 19:05:39 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Apr 2023 23:05:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57179 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1proCg-0004LW-Oj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:05:39 -0400 Received: from wnew4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.18]:47597) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1proCb-0004LE-RI for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:05:38 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991112B06432; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:05:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682550326; x=1682553926; bh=uuAkXHvZzbEPiYhoQOa6t8gFPDdi2MmzFGl YFatP9HI=; b=W/RB4jX3RfQVp5HvVYJw5GKP9QtIzzDGD8zKmEUkCxEC6URmLcH cOY+Zr3gzq9r5EM8pElHXx12RK3RO37mHkih9AIkJqaTovtfVMP63YUsf+Xguie8 arJjywijSHuFRjhszRL54OH3Tht373JYenD5uU1kqcihYvQ1wE1RiP7juTbgcb5q NHrTMw8Vx2d20tpVx8MWzb1Xy7/avrEigw7g3SRAgM8EKRh09ugGClVL3qKjAlQa /oNDUWBXsOrve+Tyjn5I1aEODrKqvbKsWkcquM7PyaXpnuB9riSFu0jMbidSEPcJ NsO9oq1fTgZ8Sh8u73vLRzrvkyptuPrbM1A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682550326; x=1682553926; bh=uuAkXHvZzbEPiYhoQOa6t8gFPDdi2MmzFGl YFatP9HI=; b=T7XaJEQUaYOaO/CenAwiJAT3bFgshbiyDqMaVV0mc1lQkLTQCr3 OoDxfN1H5c/1fXdTocJuNt1at+ZYQ+iTt0uCtjqYlripVJ+sm2UGYh3Mjq7K9NwY xg+mnhAjYySwzTGLSSK78R5prDnEc90in1r6v3VFMziFCk6C42XzfacdLQ9Hou3J 9aEpLjuSLbZ9lgI6Qhh1/BaLn9Nb3VDdJwD0L6OelH4ua7LadhLNu8vFsKLFxmUH Xn6vDJ5ZJRk9wCb23xIty7LokslGHoVN19UAIAS+QYciXMV4ZXcjYeBmZU4vUOhm Y5AHdn0jnC6pxIUOquActpyPF8L5NlM7Neg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfeduhedgudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffhvfevfhgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfeftdejleetffelhfffteefgfeggfejgfdtudeuvedttdetvdelffekvdeg udetnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 02:05:21 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US From: Dmitry Gutov To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> In-Reply-To: <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 25/04/2023 21:35, Dmitry Gutov wrote: >> So I think we need to rephrase that.  Something like >> >>    Packages which are part of the Emacs distribution cannot be updated >>    that way. > > This is probably better. As long as we understand it to read "packages > which are part ... and were never upgraded to a version from ELPA". Anyway, if we agree to keep this unfixed, we should probably add this text somewhere: either into the docstring anyway, or to etc/PROBLEMS. Not sure how to avoid the impression that this is the intended behavior and not something we're looking to change in the future, though. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 27 01:40:57 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Apr 2023 05:40:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57387 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pruNE-0007PF-T1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 01:40:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44358) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pruNC-0007P0-ME for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 01:40:55 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pruN4-00079y-Gj; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 01:40:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=yy/PwCZmlQPl64unYTMijLjHgl+N0L0np3ggisNjSZk=; b=PUKddca7zvG6aSzM73QF pVpw5Q5kQ+GdhzntbiZ2donylT+tfkR0K0C27c+5brKbAi/yg+HAhPMsuqDzzRI6LTi+Lu+wdORvo Xz3U95PIz5GFeVK8wDDxpFzPu2pxrZu1wtyB4W2yEEIaWPI24dw6ZZPcDoxgMarsOVlZdaB33u0yy WDCAq+zvcthfv/W9/scapdAqnCntAMTneeKaq2jje/yE1AXclvd/tS29sdH8xygJf51yiLWhStGU5 rUAtPgQ6NyBFe0Qivqwo/uM+/aX1l+Ytb76Q3edsvPnSGNE7IDNHj5BlBFtJ4ceNH7exVCfCUMjwK zqzHMW8Dl3yeww==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pruN1-00040i-Lc; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 01:40:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 08:41:15 +0300 Message-Id: <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 02:05:21 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 02:05:21 +0300 > From: Dmitry Gutov > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com > > On 25/04/2023 21:35, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > >> So I think we need to rephrase that.  Something like > >> > >>    Packages which are part of the Emacs distribution cannot be updated > >>    that way. > > > > This is probably better. As long as we understand it to read "packages > > which are part ... and were never upgraded to a version from ELPA". > > Anyway, if we agree to keep this unfixed, we should probably add this > text somewhere: either into the docstring anyway, or to etc/PROBLEMS. Do we agree to leave package-update unchanged? And what about the renaming you suggested in another bug report? I'd like to make a new pretest soon, with all these issues finalized as best as we can. As for PROBLEMS, I'm not sure. We usually put there only something that people actually complain about, not proactively. How about mentioning this in the doc string instead? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 27 05:01:03 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Apr 2023 09:01:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57553 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prxUs-0007Pc-Of for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 05:01:03 -0400 Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.229]:36243) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prxUq-0007P0-D7 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 05:01:01 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5874C581E78; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 05:00:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 Apr 2023 05:00:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682586055; x=1682589655; bh=DDHn/h+BCFu7LcaUjf24emWfMKASctERxTE IAre6V6Q=; b=GYYRkqhhtirwOjl6/w6n/kylDJlEMPz1/DZtvI7VI/TC70ufL17 +NTWI6CItEaTI+8XT80CcFOdkDjD9tRNiBAINz5H68bPhZJxjFRpmLl45edVxnBO FryjTiIicAp/Q6uZxWhEsYJTCeBLnAiImGLR/HckP8qlbNUzwbQbjiFyhSZNSkuq B7QszK9RkUZFsXAHFAqwVOaifq0nJg5OTXbTiRU4O4qlrQ2XjmU4yKrgH6sprPth e0B1DnRNKhZPmcqzNL47lNMHFg21//hHE+kd6mmkp8JlOsG7ELRZSm3qbtNcRGZX pJsqIOoU7VJyvz7CqgHxfvtJC1QJAdmln/w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682586055; x=1682589655; bh=DDHn/h+BCFu7LcaUjf24emWfMKASctERxTE IAre6V6Q=; b=ZkxiVMsI8bOnGKKsr8Zg9A890RoybNHLp+CYTiTUt1hqlOJc7ZN KIC2SPAQtDdTz2l3BIW+9obaP0UWGFfJqTjfo3n2ntvrjhWR0qy+uFBvQZf1tdkl WMbwIl1P5DEGu8fzfsZDXtIFsheyi0z5dfgCvYwwwANcyvvgjpxhvzhs4z0q1ckR 58p7UcFrwzIYhVAFi5riaYt/9dpkzoRP4dgI5G6wAsHpwNT55tgzrNc7HEUdKgpw VVNmgbE80WByYYSSiywkkWj29cpXdKsA+eVlLsgkHYGPOkW78rZWVa2FSc1qR4X8 vLjfSBJPOG0YZYSsC86cAI/vMJWE5+o5UMA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfeduiedgudduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfffheeljeffgeffueeghfekkedtfffgheejvdegjeettdduheeufffggfef jeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 05:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:00:51 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 27/04/2023 08:41, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 02:05:21 +0300 >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com >> >> On 25/04/2023 21:35, Dmitry Gutov wrote: >>>> So I think we need to rephrase that.  Something like >>>> >>>>    Packages which are part of the Emacs distribution cannot be updated >>>>    that way. >>> >>> This is probably better. As long as we understand it to read "packages >>> which are part ... and were never upgraded to a version from ELPA". >> >> Anyway, if we agree to keep this unfixed, we should probably add this >> text somewhere: either into the docstring anyway, or to etc/PROBLEMS. > > Do we agree to leave package-update unchanged? Apparently so. > And what about the renaming you suggested in another bug report? Still waiting for your go-ahead. Although it sounds like I have it. > I'd like to make a new pretest soon, with all these issues finalized > as best as we can. Very good. > As for PROBLEMS, I'm not sure. We usually put there only something > that people actually complain about, not proactively. How about > mentioning this in the doc string instead? Sure. Hopefully it won't create an impression that the described behavior is _intended_. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 27 06:43:49 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Apr 2023 10:43:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57660 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prz6L-0001nU-EA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:43:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50706) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prz6J-0001nG-1u for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:43:47 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prz6A-00026C-Rz; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:43:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=Owuv17MH6WOW9vfK7hsSWNadks6WjzauL2F84P9qRz0=; b=T6MScUvvmwpE 2f6/8n0/U66Drss1I/OB3LmuHuNNMxKPvN6W9T1hxhaz8ob+eXbVY/xOtlmvwrbaFzBIa4j7LAT+Q 64T+UmP1DNHgaKInZTlTiHuQ3hFuAZCkd6+IFnFi8PBtENws1DaAcJdZT7roTA8BRedzVk9qFp6lD bD1aq2wS527tam/y6VXoFr8K/3P6Vcc32ZzzmDxjpj18+tHdA2AilYCZMzFyLc8bhO0oR/yzOoJFQ tXu/jhGCeNJblmuIdjVnEUwUKZO/IVZBzg69LnNPnY4KVcisuH+ee+3UbxKhj+ChCVxamhZxIqM5A Nc+pcoU5c9eIIOqOR4P7+w==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prz69-0001U7-CA; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:43:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:44:08 +0300 Message-Id: <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:00:51 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:00:51 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > And what about the renaming you suggested in another bug report? > > Still waiting for your go-ahead. Although it sounds like I have it. No one objected, AFAIU. So I think you can install that. > > As for PROBLEMS, I'm not sure. We usually put there only something > > that people actually complain about, not proactively. How about > > mentioning this in the doc string instead? > > Sure. Hopefully it won't create an impression that the described > behavior is _intended_. We can say something like "Currently, ..." to make that clear. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 27 19:51:31 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Apr 2023 23:51:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60082 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1psBOd-0003lJ-4s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:51:31 -0400 Received: from wnew4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.18]:47843) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1psBOb-0003kn-Jg for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:51:30 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6666F2B06689; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:51:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:51:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1682639483; x=1682643083; bh=RdKL7WhA7ZunNQIpHEXpypVZynWoKjBagLc k/GZDSAU=; b=Xzv3lV1X1c8t8OSHrC0c3kCLVdlbz/NEmeYsBbTcpu+9cA2GPCw mKizs7qla1FvOJzLkRXP4OsNzXDbLfeYoEJfX+xI5Dy9aA/Y+wv3rAGv8i7Dq+PI a6Rvph4Aa+AwQqZ66jwr2450GgkkJLg6YLIUSL8EyN1P/PkQtlCbcOvuqOEfBBVZ YyNiTfDV1kNg7LpDCmvJJ/T01xhTSsdtJCl71/peo/QpSibFLu9F/pv5pZ/Un9a+ vb7zpl8sr003FaXi4hUpnL8wT8ymUcIBP7w7CLejXOpYwSHm8PlFCWGhpLGZFixl 9OArL/iKiypDSyrjnfhweRxepUZ7zkdey4g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682639483; x=1682643083; bh=RdKL7WhA7ZunNQIpHEXpypVZynWoKjBagLc k/GZDSAU=; b=UO7sfNnsIBlIA8iMxyIjRdEa066dSGsrCT3KzhRWqGDkke6SDZb 7MFf7kPaZPgGaJVYygjO3wwAWsJq2kg2csnySEntfiwTvAf73Z8ywwwHg486RX7M PNerGoAApPnIzbosUE1kQxQHF33o6Ac8pGwXOkbUNAXgB96uNv83OP5zfzlDEjPw TK3+og1ikn0kCsAL7ujzxeuw+tY8bHaReHbBp4ItX39ymAANib8Zkhd6VAdG/LoF X2itDkXxzZDdAuD48s9Nk/eAXhlNhX5x+5+W+tXWWCz2qz/pAmly7rgypalUHwo/ ECmOG8yn8Uo1KOrXg9GVnpywzjU2sp3CCqQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedujedgvdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfeutdekveeggeetteekfeejffegudduudfhueevleeftdffffeggeeivddv jeelnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgnhhurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenuc frrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:51:19 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.9 (--) On 27/04/2023 13:44, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:00:51 +0300 >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >>> And what about the renaming you suggested in another bug report? >> >> Still waiting for your go-ahead. Although it sounds like I have it. > > No one objected, AFAIU. So I think you can install that. Thank you, done. >>> As for PROBLEMS, I'm not sure. We usually put there only something >>> that people actually complain about, not proactively. How about >>> mentioning this in the doc string instead? >> >> Sure. Hopefully it won't create an impression that the described >> behavior is _intended_. > > We can say something like "Currently, ..." to make that clear. Very good, I've used that and an additional clarification for a recommended alternative. Please see how you like it, or whether it needs improving. Before the next pretest is cut, I'd also like to bring up the question again of backporting the patch for bug#62816 (with Joao's support: previously mentioned in https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62720#517, for example). It improves the part of Eldoc that is not used by default (eldoc-documentation-strategy has a different value) but which is used by Eglot since it changes that variable in its managed buffers. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 28 01:19:42 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Apr 2023 05:19:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60220 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1psGWB-0005YX-1n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:19:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57820) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1psGW0-0005YA-7Z for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:19:37 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1psGVt-0006NO-HU; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:19:21 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=ArXr1DxEajBFtbcwOl1pS3I0aPfEwAJ1cQmvNJMfRfQ=; b=H/7qEKa1VXvj /h/qZxOM020+oEFYSDS1k7bd80wFxzj7rbSC4MNwDpHzh0z0GD3kOP0kWgfGlgFMaD83efBNXWIJy TZg6W/JOfhUTQd7BRaJg3MJVWekkotEjAV0O+kILJM/HhkrcVXy17a9Vkj1xmiK+mCBTJY9i92RPJ QM/DgQep4679Axmm5nhvl7lXTE/LDY2M5rylNHUEndZSPydvp834dJmkF578K2W0bSMO+eoL5Q5I/ 89Dq1YJuHz2j6AMvZnYfkNaze3FNUZtWJXCI91YN7ox8D0BDKI7d5dDYQnMCtvlSDt0EJDOGzypwA o5ScQSPq8t6NahRvGHUfpw==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1psGVs-0000AY-4H; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:19:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:19:52 +0300 Message-Id: <83a5ysshvr.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:51:19 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:51:19 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > We can say something like "Currently, ..." to make that clear. > > Very good, I've used that and an additional clarification for a > recommended alternative. Please see how you like it, or whether it needs > improving. I've made a few minor improvements, thanks. > Before the next pretest is cut, I'd also like to bring up the question > again of backporting the patch for bug#62816 (with Joao's support: > previously mentioned in > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62720#517, for example). > > It improves the part of Eldoc that is not used by default > (eldoc-documentation-strategy has a different value) but which is used > by Eglot since it changes that variable in its managed buffers. That patch didn't yet accumulate enough time for me to consider it safe for the release branch. Depending on when Emacs 29.1 is released and whether we hear some downsides of the change, it could need to wait for Emacs 29.2 or for Emacs 30.1. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 30 22:00:57 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 May 2023 02:00:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38609 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ptIqX-000705-4i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Apr 2023 22:00:57 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:11830) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ptIqV-0006zt-Fj for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 Apr 2023 22:00:55 -0400 Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 290944416E1; Sun, 30 Apr 2023 22:00:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 08530441560; Sun, 30 Apr 2023 22:00:49 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1682906449; bh=/N2Kc5GG06Enh+hGNs4xN/12Ay7PwTBYHw0eX0xLgC8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=UctNgf/gz73YI2Luz66klzR7b+JmXZMUjuP3UTFeh3XSWvuSgi135ZW8JaNQIYvZ5 4q73iK0deeERA7KhX7B/IREHm4zrurQip6UVihWk2HwaMFRobKRQKTY5HKdi7QRWrz Ip5rqK3vu6uvpLeSyA0AydqYlABDaBq5usqSRETYsdsn6g65aep6ZYTb7Mp+/BsIxn RsUQDkBLhf7WiiVTsTFHUlnTOd5SIfg4po8gqWHKTOgndUj5WZX3XacrW+EiE58X7C UBFqZ7YYa4KBbXu6Pod2tlJEglev8jg2U5xejogysqhCjnhzWnNpGszUjs1bCFaTIA ZCh/FhVHhDq5A== Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.217.176]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C1481201C8; Sun, 30 Apr 2023 22:00:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Philip Kaludercic Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <87354q92gh.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:02:06 +0000") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <87354q92gh.fsf@posteo.net> Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 22:00:47 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.038 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov , Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -3.3 (---) > If we insist on package.el installing the newest version, then this > would make sense. I don't see any reason we should ignore priorities here, so we shouldn't blindly aim for the "newest version". Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu May 04 19:58:37 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 May 2023 23:58:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52347 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puiqK-0000mx-I6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 04 May 2023 19:58:36 -0400 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:37953) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puiqH-0000mh-SO for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 04 May 2023 19:58:34 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DF55C00E1; Thu, 4 May 2023 19:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 04 May 2023 19:58:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1683244708; x=1683331108; bh=CJa2rYlkh9FbK28agmBcYSmnnob/xo1r7TD 1bJFTXEw=; b=RVC/y5e1ff+jOaTlSM7Z3pNmlYBHKD/Zw/P5H8w7RXxINlhe5yc nhyY/86+DeL2dIT4sPbfqRj0exkXpgFDnpiFY5oC8SPR3dHoCb7G79c6uoPeOMGh U2I4bg+gPNgQRifvLp/jzzOWp34fckYeYLR2ZF/zkdUXdzp/xKF0BTt+WWphLLmE cEoxt4/E5bZiHXS7OizRH+AbTTMxhMKr9tdg6TAQ+xhZlFKCx98NtnmPj+XKjY3b 4Z5GLf6FpaiQe8BK44/OxR6mVkeshBvckOJWXOhe6sIm6MU5G6NT8O0Cb5wDMI8a Ngn4aWJIRDAJHek3zsYiEWo2nUPPNgigs6Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1683244708; x=1683331108; bh=CJa2rYlkh9FbK28agmBcYSmnnob/xo1r7TD 1bJFTXEw=; b=LatfoFK8yfeZoCCycHACEgdxnLYvC1RAlcqSGnM3WmEbbq1Ibzs 11nc3jBSt6SaEsZjGhbl/vbVnNxyOCMQsYv9uNeTupIDOkn1fyNLc0qgrtISiE7h gt+K3s489VnvIW0RRgn9AzAf9wHF96GgsDw2u9HnZhjQmDlWiFwgcS0aWiVoz0x5 DJb35GpZ/VWTu4s6YBQuHGCoL3nkRxtrXKWCAT/+Z3CLdJJaPlLyt3XOOt8Rld+f ac+l3iwWLjbFz1/W+KaJNDhVOjTWHtBgmC/AddpMZ+AJLqju9PxhAE333nOAjGF6 iCCChtfoxIZUU630MzIQjGFJz69BpoCyYXQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfeefuddgfedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfeutdekveeggeetteekfeejffegudduudfhueevleeftdffffeggeeivddv jeelnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgnhhurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenuc frrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepughmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 4 May 2023 19:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <170cd4ee-f967-f6e2-b7f8-a22c5076806c@gutov.dev> Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 02:58:25 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> <83a5ysshvr.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <83a5ysshvr.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -2.8 (--) On 28/04/2023 08:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:51:19 +0300 >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >>> We can say something like "Currently, ..." to make that clear. >> >> Very good, I've used that and an additional clarification for a >> recommended alternative. Please see how you like it, or whether it needs >> improving. > > I've made a few minor improvements, thanks. Thank you. >> Before the next pretest is cut, I'd also like to bring up the question >> again of backporting the patch for bug#62816 (with Joao's support: >> previously mentioned in >> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62720#517, for example). >> >> It improves the part of Eldoc that is not used by default >> (eldoc-documentation-strategy has a different value) but which is used >> by Eglot since it changes that variable in its managed buffers. > > That patch didn't yet accumulate enough time for me to consider it > safe for the release branch. Depending on when Emacs 29.1 is released > and whether we hear some downsides of the change, it could need to > wait for Emacs 29.2 or for Emacs 30.1. Okay. Let's get back to the previous topic. What about the previous fix for package-upgrade that I posted, one that makes it unconditionally upgrade built-in packages when invoked? The one attached here: https://debbugs.gnu.org/62720#718 Can we put it on master now, or do we have to wait for some feedback from Emacs 29 first? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 05 01:03:41 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 May 2023 05:03:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52843 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1punbY-0002Ky-P1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:03:41 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53912) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1punbW-0002Kh-Pi for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:03:39 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1punbR-00058r-AT; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:03:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=UKYs/pzEPMUH04ZejA98CPhzza/ybEp3udKrlE0LemQ=; b=log3AC63XfuP ADZ5SxquI8UZ5jInGZMnHeLK0ihvXVkJKLVriI5PopI+QojEjjV2gkEOudmzx020j1ayviOBcs0+r TgmjjnqB7i3FIyCGykjRBSN0zi5iUbVk4v1kIVJPaC5brgH5BdR6WI9en+Q8zHd6wB8Q+xaRPiLMh 8KGl2/kxT9pghb1C8oJ9XNLmvxTwVJfP6GgDGO2GgpBnLj0j4HC9/KVUgDpWPIyxo8oiCQJu3CqLo rf91qhR92lC65B9ViTT8B5oUBIr0C9vaKzYwU4BppKBnOkAuu23DNdoJ5jHgXxW8ReQR03o936Oy+ UQe79rxbFso0QOt8JKoLWg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1punbP-0002KD-9E; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:03:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 08:04:23 +0300 Message-Id: <83r0rvjrmw.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <170cd4ee-f967-f6e2-b7f8-a22c5076806c@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 5 May 2023 02:58:25 +0300) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> <83a5ysshvr.fsf@gnu.org> <170cd4ee-f967-f6e2-b7f8-a22c5076806c@gutov.dev> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) > Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 02:58:25 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com > From: Dmitry Gutov > > Let's get back to the previous topic. What about the previous fix for > package-upgrade that I posted, one that makes it unconditionally upgrade > built-in packages when invoked? > > The one attached here: https://debbugs.gnu.org/62720#718 > > Can we put it on master now, or do we have to wait for some feedback > from Emacs 29 first? I'd prefer the latter. I'd prefer even more to have same behavior in Emacs 20 and Emacs 30, which could be possible if we decide to make this change in Emacs 29.2, based on feedback. Because is it really a good idea to have the master and the release branch behave so differently in this regard? People who use both branches, or switch from one to the other, will become confused. Philip, Stefan: WDYT about this? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 05 01:41:29 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 May 2023 05:41:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52897 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puoC8-0003a9-O4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:41:29 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:60459) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puoC5-0003Zs-Cb for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:41:27 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 610E1240B6D for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 5 May 2023 07:41:19 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1683265279; bh=U4UtGoEASMoyig17bJ42RzTi23kEt22qRHX7imOcbHc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=iZ6BfPFijLaqhjwGaONzmNE2WUdXaYalXffDNoZAzcq47QE24XGQByUUsaOlXpF5w m+aFIDlatbtkShRbFjbj3okKZMCQNFAeiPBwB11weIxjfg9IZ7jHzNzzLmnZ3aEF/+ 3XG4hQqttgSx/4WlQt+Dq/YdMo93v4n/6cBOFQ8nk1WLWENFdXeg7kkRjMiWaPkd9X kzKZT2++l3M4VHlnbHk0mPibIkMT9aboASW1hZhmPYLJZID4T8azUsy6HXrE/bxgze movBKGrhmQLcJLDeyVuekqHz9sa2hHDRkz8/3GAfxCvDRZq5NaCyiB8cfrTlwz0Iw3 N7aq6PymmmYnw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4QCKL56sb9z6txT; Fri, 5 May 2023 07:41:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Philip Kaludercic To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83r0rvjrmw.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 05 May 2023 08:04:23 +0300") References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> <83a5ysshvr.fsf@gnu.org> <170cd4ee-f967-f6e2-b7f8-a22c5076806c@gutov.dev> <83r0rvjrmw.fsf@gnu.org> Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 05:41:17 +0000 Message-ID: <87zg6jbaiq.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov , joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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: -3.3 (---) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 02:58:25 +0300 >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >> Let's get back to the previous topic. What about the previous fix for >> package-upgrade that I posted, one that makes it unconditionally upgrade >> built-in packages when invoked? >> >> The one attached here: https://debbugs.gnu.org/62720#718 >> >> Can we put it on master now, or do we have to wait for some feedback >> from Emacs 29 first? > > I'd prefer the latter. I'd prefer even more to have same behavior in > Emacs 20 and Emacs 30, which could be possible if we decide to make > this change in Emacs 29.2, based on feedback. Because is it really a > good idea to have the master and the release branch behave so > differently in this regard? People who use both branches, or switch > from one to the other, will become confused. > > Philip, Stefan: WDYT about this? I am fine with any change, as long as package-upgrade-all does not automatically switch from built-in packages to a different version from ELPA. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 05 09:58:56 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 May 2023 13:58:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57151 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puvxY-0007RN-2J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 09:58:56 -0400 Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:31091) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puvxW-0007R5-S3 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 09:58:55 -0400 Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5C07C80ADE; Fri, 5 May 2023 09:58:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EC3A8803B4; Fri, 5 May 2023 09:58:47 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1683295128; bh=S8xuPtdRXafBBvZ6xqgQPpIYk6E7Z38VFqr6CaGekak=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=e0tGP4YvHKmb+w9NJyekfe834wAyAKHqtLyXWij+RXtLmjDBAwpCOeBWMjDHu3AQ3 jE+KBVGnpU6WNfhjyVgwyq4JhRrWsj09nV3bYWzdQ8Pp6PTAfoGWmnbOjKSGAxHXId PlcWRovdtUL+ppDFXpKRPJuTBpsfScWpZqfdIv5YRMHFR17EuVjLr8cGtduWWoPxmh zzknBAvs45Vqx/8QAnQbUgRp7zqJsvcKOB725QtlcWmaxXCdrBBYV4h8TepU1gDtWC OpIu+rjXA0KtD1lxHXuur1qFLQYkDdqgwOJ4p5EsEInnVIfDLj+qp3ADSB9E05KOCh 3oPikgO+aIakQ== Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.217.176]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEEE31202A2; Fri, 5 May 2023 09:58:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot In-Reply-To: <83r0rvjrmw.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 05 May 2023 08:04:23 +0300") Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> <83a5ysshvr.fsf@gnu.org> <170cd4ee-f967-f6e2-b7f8-a22c5076806c@gutov.dev> <83r0rvjrmw.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 09:58:44 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results: 0 ALL_TRUSTED -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP AWL 0.122 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - X-SPAM-LEVEL: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov , joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > People who use both branches, or switch from one to the other, will > become confused. I'm not terribly worried about that. > Philip, Stefan: WDYT about this? I'll second Philip's reply here. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 05 10:04:50 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 May 2023 14:04:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57169 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puw3G-0007e2-K5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 10:04:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50504) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puw3C-0007dl-QF for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 10:04:48 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1puw36-0006ec-MM; Fri, 05 May 2023 10:04:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=q/gZl6x1Wm2OwWNCP8eqdexkmz50RaNCFldWIGfyvcI=; b=BRhEeTJs7Dxx KFWKP/XwPAxJ4aU6FzjGEvERv5sgXWZbgVSTGEW3cGC8D0rzif53Wj2cgvXcE+Qr7obq9t5IDBF8j STe5vmiY2LA64BdFT3z2lwrls2vdj0M6NkWBkKoCVQ44ZXb+ctmD+7Pj2A2SiNanc+w9Q1SU+t2I+ o8+W7+0XW3b/7e0rF2KktkYX40e9ppuiIoFknPP7/VnjxhjD/D69bpZp3uIhYg2FR2HGOdSMJtInO Muw4AKV1koJMIVrGqcy1nlBHAQKCDMxgSgFUa4pRbzRZFTHnRenAJIWOCA5P6g/kM7HQyeK03QhkF Zn7vAcpLh9m/te3YSAHTyQ==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1puw2j-0005Kv-Vb; Fri, 05 May 2023 10:04:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 17:05:10 +0300 Message-Id: <838re2j2ll.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 05 May 2023 09:58:44 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> <83a5ysshvr.fsf@gnu.org> <170cd4ee-f967-f6e2-b7f8-a22c5076806c@gutov.dev> <83r0rvjrmw.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, dmitry@gutov.dev, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.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: -3.3 (---) > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Dmitry Gutov , jporterbugs@gmail.com, > philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com > Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 09:58:44 -0400 > > > People who use both branches, or switch from one to the other, will > > become confused. > > I'm not terribly worried about that. > > > Philip, Stefan: WDYT about this? > > I'll second Philip's reply here. So I guess the consensus here is that this change is fine for master, so let's install it there. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 05 21:02:53 2023 Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 May 2023 01:02:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57850 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pv6K5-0000pW-6G for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 21:02:53 -0400 Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]:59275) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pv6K0-0000pG-TP for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 21:02:52 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A161C3200406; Fri, 5 May 2023 21:02:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 05 May 2023 21:02:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gutov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1683334962; x=1683421362; bh=FT9kDBATsc2C77bfCbnUS9TC4tpPjnW1qZ9 h/5dMhvw=; b=y9d9VYqEqoydfn84l1JkUKarbQAiMV1HPzGhpEsm9O6WDDEGYq3 SrFm3nQKL293VAdaNHBtWosx2blbOTKqiuJFfHQf0Y+T6AoUFsbgStt8gnVeMASn Piqm71HKzIF1OUG145WUu+YU8Z48PXA2waM2xrQ89w954xaTY0fVRXoadRZh/sgZ 1D5IYak5M7gPjzHaOyX5zFuGqkuQ1hwhRx8Lms66SvIEp6jLGMeUXbu0C5ZpPU3c bPPhmH7F+zgF06/D20FpW2s5vxCDIeWil9PtiyauZfUGvCuvXfQuT1iO3/PEpfCK fKb02LhH40ReLnVQgmuTnDa+PY3mdrCx47w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1683334962; x=1683421362; bh=FT9kDBATsc2C77bfCbnUS9TC4tpPjnW1qZ9 h/5dMhvw=; b=QVVb9I5F8vXa3LAk0ZTBnDtxhpm/l5B5NXxxihT3DW7yu1uRGKT 9w+LrDaxix+WG59cJqAAMYdlgvu2rAD7ZiObkY13RZmAHR1hEOt6W4Qjb+4qPxNV j2QR1YtYvnrgylRRHKIfIkbUFytyYJUJu4SnxJjpHQBQuqlKdFFjMH5N6fCcptF1 DJegebZM3wHANuSev6kHBW0mZ9YPUoxeXGSLXXc8iA3ulLcl/Cy9vfmdvR8NnEow lOzrH6uN84MZbeHDEBTFxDAbXd4o6Z7Ij6nlrqQbEXX4Fc9jLtkFIFrXdAe/1ffD TI9hJnHJSBZeMWXBLmMP+JzTZSq/pBVavMA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfeeffedggedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffmhhi thhrhicuifhuthhovhcuoegumhhithhrhiesghhuthhovhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepiefgteevheevveffheeltdeukeeiieekueefgedugfefgefhudelgfefveel vdevnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepug hmihhtrhihsehguhhtohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0e71465a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 5 May 2023 21:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 04:02:38 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> <83a5ysshvr.fsf@gnu.org> <170cd4ee-f967-f6e2-b7f8-a22c5076806c@gutov.dev> <83r0rvjrmw.fsf@gnu.org> <838re2j2ll.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov In-Reply-To: <838re2j2ll.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62720 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com 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: -2.9 (--) On 05/05/2023 17:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Stefan Monnier >> Cc: Dmitry Gutov,jporterbugs@gmail.com, >> philipk@posteo.net,62720@debbugs.gnu.org,larsi@gnus.org, >> joaotavora@gmail.com >> Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 09:58:44 -0400 >> >>> People who use both branches, or switch from one to the other, will >>> become confused. >> I'm not terribly worried about that. >> >>> Philip, Stefan: WDYT about this? >> I'll second Philip's reply here. > So I guess the consensus here is that this change is fine for master, > so let's install it there. Thanks all, done. I've also installed the minor fix discussed previously on emacs-29. From unknown Fri Jun 20 07:16:30 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, 03 Jun 2023 11:24:05 +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