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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #682 received at 62720 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

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,
 joaotavora <at> gmail.com, larsi <at> gnus.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages
 like Eglot
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:48:41 +0300

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"?

Previous Next

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