GNU bug report logs - #62720
29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 62720 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora <at> gmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:56:08 +0300

> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
> Cc: joaotavora <at> gmail.com,  monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,  62720 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>   larsi <at> gnus.org
> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:10:01 +0000
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> 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?

Previous Next

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