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

From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Adam Porter <adam <at> alphapapa.net>, larsi <at> gnus.org,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, philipk <at> posteo.net, 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, 1 May 2023 16:19:29 +0300
On 01/05/2023 04:55, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> That might also be the case when upgrading a package that some others
>> depend on (newer version could also have macros deleted or renamed).
> 
> We try to make upgrades "safe", but there's usually no such effort the
> other way around, so downgrading is definitely more risky in practice,
> even though in theory things can break in all cases.

Very true.

>> Would "update" be a more proper term to cover both upgrading and
>> downgrading?
> 
> I think if you specify the target version, then `package-install` sounds
> about right (and I suspect it may already "work").

It indeed "works" in the sense that package-install performs two 
different functions

- "Install package xyz" (i.e. make sure it is installed, some version),
- "Install xyz version 1.2.3 (installs that version)

It doesn't delete the currently installed version in the latter case 
either, though, and when  downgrading we'll almost certainly want that 
to happen.




This bug report was last modified 2 years and 81 days ago.

Previous Next


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