GNU bug report logs -
#62720
29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot
Previous Next
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
> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:30:41 +0300
> 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
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
>
> > 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.
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.