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: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
Cc: jporterbugs <at> gmail.com, philipk <at> posteo.net, 62720 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, larsi <at> gnus.org, joaotavora <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:33:35 +0300

> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 03:57:03 +0300
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
> Cc: jporterbugs <at> gmail.com, philipk <at> posteo.net, 62720 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>  joaotavora <at> gmail.com, larsi <at> gnus.org, monnier <at> 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.

Previous Next

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