GNU bug report logs -
#62750
29.0.50; Commands 'package-update' and 'package-update-all' should be called '*-upgrade'
Previous Next
Reported by: Adam Porter <adam <at> alphapapa.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:54:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Found in version 29.0.50
Done: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #47 received at 62750 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 15/04/2023 04:34, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> On 12/04/2023 16:34, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> I hadn't realized that `package-update` hasn't been in a release
>>>> yet, so
>>>> we don't need such a compatibility alias.
>>> Even though these commands were available under those names for the
>>> last year or so?
>> Well, that's for you to judge 😄
>
> Since they're not very likely to be used in Lisp code, I'd say it's
> unlikely to be a problem.
>
> Alternatively, we'll probably get around to fixing this inconsistency
> sometime after this release, and then carry the compatibility aliases
> for a number of years.
Here's a couple of other existing functions:
package--update-selected-packages
package--update-downloads-in-progress
Neither of these relate to upgrading packages. Although the former could
be easy to mistake for that now.
In all older functions, the term "update" (in comments and variable
names) refers to updating the value of some variable, not packages.
By analogy, 'M-x package-update-all' might be easy enough to mistake for
updating the list of packages available for installation, for example.
Here's a patch that does the rename. Also including package-vc-update*
that Philip mentioned.
[0001-Rename-all-functions-called-package-update-to-packag.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 80 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.