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

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2023 22:11:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version 29.0.60

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

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
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 13:30:41 +0300
On 22/04/2023 11:33, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> 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),

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?




This bug report was last modified 2 years and 17 days ago.

Previous Next


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