GNU bug report logs - #62750
29.0.50; Commands 'package-update' and 'package-update-all' should be called '*-upgrade'

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

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 #56 received at 62750 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
To: Adam Porter <adam <at> alphapapa.net>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, philipk <at> posteo.net, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
 62750 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62750: 29.0.50; Commands 'package-update' and
 'package-update-all' should be called '*-upgrade'
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 21:54:58 +0300
On 24/04/2023 20:28, Adam Porter wrote:
> On 4/24/23 07:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
>> Me, I have only one potential issue: since "update" just means "delete
>> the installed version, then install another version", it could be
>> easily made to downgrade, not just to upgrade.  So if we ever would
>> like to allow downgrading, the new names will get in the way.  But if
>> this is not an issue we should be bothered about, it's fine by me.
> 
> IMHO, a command to downgrade ought to be a separate command with a 
> different name--not only to reduce confusion, but because downgrading 
> packages is an operation that is more likely to require manual user 
> intervention, such as recompiling other packages that depend on the 
> downgraded package (e.g. if struct or macro definitions change, or 
> symbols disappear).

That might also be the case when upgrading a package that some others 
depend on (newer version could also have macros deleted or renamed).

Either way, though, we could make it a separate command.

Or even augment the current one: (package-upgrade 'name 
"some-older-version") has a similar feel to (forward-char -1), not 
exactly unfamiliar to us.

Would "update" be a more proper term to cover both upgrading and 
downgrading? I'm not sure about that. Aside from "downgrade", I would 
probably say "revert" or "install an older version". E.g. when using 
apt-get, the relevant subcommand would be "install".

> It's easy enough to cause that problem when upgrading, and much more 
> likely when downgrading, to the extent that it's arguable that a command 
> to downgrade shouldn't exist, because users who want to downgrade a 
> package should be prepared to deal with the potential fallout.

Or that. We don't keep older versions around in ELPA anyway, so for now 
the question is moot.




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.