GNU bug report logs -
#69528
30.0.50; [BUG] transient.el is not a member of package--builtin-versions
Previous Next
To reply to this bug, email your comments to 69528 AT debbugs.gnu.org.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 03 Mar 2024 17:26:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
No Wayman <iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org.
(Sun, 03 Mar 2024 17:26:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Transient.el was added in 28.1 according to NEWS.
It is not a member of package--builtin-versions for any of the
following Emacs versions: 28.1, 28.2, 29.1, 29.2.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Mon, 04 Mar 2024 17:23:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
No Wayman <iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Transient.el was added in 28.1 according to NEWS.
> It is not a member of package--builtin-versions for any of the
> following Emacs
> versions: 28.1, 28.2, 29.1, 29.2.
I believe the behavior described here is due to this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/1b69v1b/let_magit_330_use_builtin_transient/
To summarize, the user has a built-in version of transient.el
shipped with Emacs 29.2.
They installed magit 3.3.0, which requires transient 0.3.6.
Instead of package.el seeing magit's transient.el dependency as
satisfied by the built-in version, it installed the latest
version.
I've patched Elpaca, which relies on package--builtin-vesrions,
due to similar complaints about transient.el being pulled in
despite the built-in version satisfying a dependency.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Mon, 04 Mar 2024 18:43:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
No Wayman <iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com> writes:
> No Wayman <iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Transient.el was added in 28.1 according to NEWS.
>> It is not a member of package--builtin-versions for any of the
>> following Emacs
>> versions: 28.1, 28.2, 29.1, 29.2.
At least on Emacs 30, (assq 'transient package--builtin-versions) gives
me a non-nil value. I can confirm that this is the case on the emacs-29
branch.
I suspect this commit resolved the issue, since
`loaddefs-generate--parse-file' only checks the version header, not the
package-version header.
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
commit fa5f06c1251ff717d661f05fcd240b4792054aae
Author: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>
Date: Tue Dec 5 20:01:44 2023 +0100
; * lisp/transient.el: Set Version instead of Package-Version
`finder-compile-keywords' only considers the "Version" header.
diff --git a/lisp/transient.el b/lisp/transient.el
--- a/lisp/transient.el
+++ b/lisp/transient.el
@@ -1,35 +1,35 @@
;;; transient.el --- Transient commands -*- lexical-binding:t -*-
;; Copyright (C) 2018-2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
;; Author: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>
;; Homepage: https://github.com/magit/transient
;; Keywords: extensions
-;; Package-Version: 0.5.2
+;; Version: 0.5.2
;; Package-Requires: ((emacs "26.1") (compat "29.1.4.4") (seq "2.24"))
;; SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-or-later
;; This file is part of GNU Emacs.
;; GNU Emacs is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
;; it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
;; by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License,
;; or (at your option) any later version.
;;
;; GNU Emacs is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
;; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
;; GNU General Public License for more details.
;;
;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
;; along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
;;; Commentary:
;; Transient is the library used to implement the keyboard-driven menus
;; in Magit. It is distributed as a separate package, so that it can be
;; used to implement similar menus in other packages.
;;; Code:
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
[Message part 2 (text/plain, inline)]
diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
@@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
;; correct results.
(emacs-lisp-mode)
- (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
+ (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
+ (lm-header "version")))
package)
(when (and version
(setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
>
> I believe the behavior described here is due to this:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/1b69v1b/let_magit_330_use_builtin_transient/
>
> To summarize, the user has a built-in version of transient.el shipped
> with Emacs 29.2.
> They installed magit 3.3.0, which requires transient 0.3.6. Instead of
> package.el seeing magit's transient.el dependency as satisfied by the
> built-in version, it installed the latest version.
>
> I've patched Elpaca, which relies on package--builtin-vesrions, due to
> similar complaints about transient.el being pulled in despite the
> built-in version satisfying a dependency.
I suspect that whatever you did, won't help us since this specific issue
will be resolved by the time any package.el-related fix would be published?
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Tue, 05 Mar 2024 06:21:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
>
> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
> ;; correct results.
> (emacs-lisp-mode)
> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
> + (lm-header "version")))
> package)
> (when (and version
> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>
>
What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
Joseph
[0002-Use-lm-version-instead-of-lm-header-version.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]
[0001-Check-Package-Version-header-in-lm-version-also.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Tue, 05 Mar 2024 06:21:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Thu, 09 May 2024 06:55:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
>>
>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
>> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
>> ;; correct results.
>> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
>> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
>> + (lm-header "version")))
>> package)
>> (when (and version
>> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>>
>>
>
> What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
> using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>
> Joseph
>
> [2. text/x-diff; 0002-Use-lm-version-instead-of-lm-header-version.patch]...
>
> [3. text/x-diff; 0001-Check-Package-Version-header-in-lm-version-also.patch]...
Ping!
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Thu, 09 May 2024 06:55:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sat, 25 May 2024 07:40:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #26 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Ping! Ping! Philip, can you please chime in?
> Cc: 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 23:53:38 -0700
> From: Joseph Turner via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
> the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
>
> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>
> > Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
> >> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> >> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
> >> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> >> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> >> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
> >> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
> >> ;; correct results.
> >> (emacs-lisp-mode)
> >> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
> >> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
> >> + (lm-header "version")))
> >> package)
> >> (when (and version
> >> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
> >>
> >>
> >
> > What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
> > using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
> >
> > Joseph
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sat, 25 May 2024 08:05:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #29 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
>>
>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
>> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
>> ;; correct results.
>> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
>> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
>> + (lm-header "version")))
>> package)
>> (when (and version
>> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>>
>>
>
> What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
> using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
My main concern was if we want to have Package-Version always override
Version, but if my patch modified loaddefs-gen, then I don't think there
is much of a difference if we change lisp-mnt instead (in terms of the
generality of the change).
So I am fine with the change, and think we can merge it. Eli: Is master
still fine for these kinds of changes?
> Joseph
>
>>From e83ee369ae90e5e15b3adca9eab1ded4db864427 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in>
> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 22:15:50 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Use lm-version instead of lm-header "version"
>
> bug#69528
>
> * lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el (loaddefs-generate--parse-file)
> ---
> lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> index 581053f6304..6b24f7dc8c7 100644
> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
> ;; correct results.
> (emacs-lisp-mode)
> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
> + (let ((version (lm-version))
> package)
> (when (and version
> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
> --
> 2.41.0
>
>
>>From 20db8c9afcb03d8a5acb750fa738c5066e204401 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in>
> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 22:14:26 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Check Package-Version: header in lm-version also
>
> * lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el (lm-version)
> ---
> lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
> index f111a77663c..12b23853801 100644
> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
> @@ -416,6 +416,7 @@ lm-version
> This can be found in an RCS or SCCS header."
> (lm-with-file file
> (or (lm-header "version")
> + (lm-header "package-version")
> (let ((header-max (lm-code-start)))
> (goto-char (point-min))
> (cond
Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>
>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
>>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
>>> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
>>> ;; correct results.
>>> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>>> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
>>> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
>>> + (lm-header "version")))
>>> package)
>>> (when (and version
>>> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
>> using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> [2. text/x-diff; 0002-Use-lm-version-instead-of-lm-header-version.patch]...
>>
>> [3. text/x-diff; 0001-Check-Package-Version-header-in-lm-version-also.patch]...
>
> Ping!
>
>
>
>
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> Ping! Ping! Philip, can you please chime in?
>
>> Cc: 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com
>> Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 23:53:38 -0700
>> From: Joseph Turner via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
>> the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
>>
>> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>>
>> > Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>> >> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> >> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
>> >> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> >> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> >> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
>> >> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
>> >> ;; correct results.
>> >> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>> >> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
>> >> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
>> >> + (lm-header "version")))
>> >> package)
>> >> (when (and version
>> >> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
>> > using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>> >
>> > Joseph
>
>
>
>
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sat, 25 May 2024 08:09:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #32 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>
>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
>>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
>>> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
>>> ;; correct results.
>>> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>>> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
>>> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
>>> + (lm-header "version")))
>>> package)
>>> (when (and version
>>> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
>> using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>
> My main concern was if we want to have Package-Version always override
> Version, but if my patch modified loaddefs-gen, then I don't think there
> is much of a difference if we change lisp-mnt instead (in terms of the
> generality of the change).
If it would be more appropriate, I can resubmit another patch with
"Version" used preferentially over "Package-Version".
> So I am fine with the change, and think we can merge it. Eli: Is master
> still fine for these kinds of changes?
>
>> Joseph
>>
>>>From e83ee369ae90e5e15b3adca9eab1ded4db864427 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in>
>> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 22:15:50 -0800
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Use lm-version instead of lm-header "version"
>>
>> bug#69528
>>
>> * lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el (loaddefs-generate--parse-file)
>> ---
>> lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> index 581053f6304..6b24f7dc8c7 100644
>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>> @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
>> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
>> ;; correct results.
>> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
>> + (let ((version (lm-version))
>> package)
>> (when (and version
>> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>> --
>> 2.41.0
>>
>>
>>>From 20db8c9afcb03d8a5acb750fa738c5066e204401 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in>
>> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 22:14:26 -0800
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Check Package-Version: header in lm-version also
>>
>> * lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el (lm-version)
>> ---
>> lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
>> index f111a77663c..12b23853801 100644
>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
>> @@ -416,6 +416,7 @@ lm-version
>> This can be found in an RCS or SCCS header."
>> (lm-with-file file
>> (or (lm-header "version")
>> + (lm-header "package-version")
>> (let ((header-max (lm-code-start)))
>> (goto-char (point-min))
>> (cond
>
> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>
>> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>>
>>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>>> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>>> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
>>>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>>> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
>>>> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
>>>> ;; correct results.
>>>> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>>>> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
>>>> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
>>>> + (lm-header "version")))
>>>> package)
>>>> (when (and version
>>>> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
>>> using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>>>
>>> Joseph
>>>
>>> [2. text/x-diff; 0002-Use-lm-version-instead-of-lm-header-version.patch]...
>>>
>>> [3. text/x-diff; 0001-Check-Package-Version-header-in-lm-version-also.patch]...
>>
>> Ping!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ping! Ping! Philip, can you please chime in?
>>
>>> Cc: 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com
>>> Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 23:53:38 -0700
>>> From: Joseph Turner via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
>>> the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
>>>
>>> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>>>
>>> > Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>> >> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
>>> >>
>>> >> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>> >> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
>>> >> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>> >> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>> >> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
>>> >> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
>>> >> ;; correct results.
>>> >> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>>> >> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
>>> >> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
>>> >> + (lm-header "version")))
>>> >> package)
>>> >> (when (and version
>>> >> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
>>> > using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>>> >
>>> > Joseph
>>
>>
>>
>>
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sat, 25 May 2024 08:48:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #35 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>>
>>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>>> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>>> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
>>>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>>> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
>>>> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
>>>> ;; correct results.
>>>> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>>>> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
>>>> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
>>>> + (lm-header "version")))
>>>> package)
>>>> (when (and version
>>>> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
>>> using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>>
>> My main concern was if we want to have Package-Version always override
>> Version, but if my patch modified loaddefs-gen, then I don't think there
>> is much of a difference if we change lisp-mnt instead (in terms of the
>> generality of the change).
>
> If it would be more appropriate, I can resubmit another patch with
> "Version" used preferentially over "Package-Version".
No, I believe that would be wrong, at least going by these quotes from
the manual:
(elisp) Simple Packages:
The version number comes from the ‘Package-Version’ header, if it
exists, or from the ‘Version’ header otherwise. One or the other _must_
be present. Here, the version number is 1.3.
(elisp) Library Headers:
‘Package-Version’
If ‘Version’ is not suitable for use by the package manager, then a
package can define ‘Package-Version’; it will be used instead.
This is handy if ‘Version’ is an RCS id or something else that
cannot be parsed by ‘version-to-list’.
So the patch is fine as it is.
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sat, 25 May 2024 10:50:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #38 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Cc: 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com
> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
> Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 08:04:24 +0000
>
> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>
> > What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
> > using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>
> My main concern was if we want to have Package-Version always override
> Version, but if my patch modified loaddefs-gen, then I don't think there
> is much of a difference if we change lisp-mnt instead (in terms of the
> generality of the change).
>
> So I am fine with the change, and think we can merge it. Eli: Is master
> still fine for these kinds of changes?
I think so, yes. But maybe I don't fully understand the effect of
this change? Can you describe it?
I also added the other maintainers, in case they have opinions on
this.
Thanks.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 26 May 2024 00:47:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #41 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>
>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>
>>> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>>>
>>>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>>>> So in general, this patch might be appropriate?
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>>>> index 581053f6304..42f386933dc 100644
>>>>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>>>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
>>>>> @@ -433,7 +433,8 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
>>>>> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
>>>>> ;; correct results.
>>>>> (emacs-lisp-mode)
>>>>> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
>>>>> + (let ((version (or (lm-header "package-version")
>>>>> + (lm-header "version")))
>>>>> package)
>>>>> (when (and version
>>>>> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
>>>> using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>>>
>>> My main concern was if we want to have Package-Version always override
>>> Version, but if my patch modified loaddefs-gen, then I don't think there
>>> is much of a difference if we change lisp-mnt instead (in terms of the
>>> generality of the change).
>>
>> If it would be more appropriate, I can resubmit another patch with
>> "Version" used preferentially over "Package-Version".
>
> No, I believe that would be wrong, at least going by these quotes from
> the manual:
>
> (elisp) Simple Packages:
>
> The version number comes from the ‘Package-Version’ header, if it
> exists, or from the ‘Version’ header otherwise. One or the other _must_
> be present. Here, the version number is 1.3.
>
> (elisp) Library Headers:
>
> ‘Package-Version’
> If ‘Version’ is not suitable for use by the package manager, then a
> package can define ‘Package-Version’; it will be used instead.
> This is handy if ‘Version’ is an RCS id or something else that
> cannot be parsed by ‘version-to-list’.
>
> So the patch is fine as it is.
Thanks for double-checking.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 02 Jun 2024 10:38:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #44 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> > What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
>> > using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>>
>> My main concern was if we want to have Package-Version always override
>> Version, but if my patch modified loaddefs-gen, then I don't think there
>> is much of a difference if we change lisp-mnt instead (in terms of the
>> generality of the change).
>>
>> So I am fine with the change, and think we can merge it. Eli: Is master
>> still fine for these kinds of changes?
>
> I think so, yes. But maybe I don't fully understand the effect of
> this change? Can you describe it?
>
> I also added the other maintainers, in case they have opinions on
> this.
I think the first patch is right, i.e. to use
(lm-version)
instead of
(lm-header "version")
So let's install that one, I think.
The effect of the second patch is to change `lm-version` to look for a
"Package-Version" header if there is no "Version" header.
This has two problems:
1. We didn't do that until now, and it's not clear to me what is the
issue that is prompting this change. The transient.el issue seems to
have been fixed already.
2. The way I read the manual, it seems like "Package-Version" should be
preferred over "Version", if it exists:
‘Package-Version’
If ‘Version’ is not suitable for use by the package manager, then a
package can define ‘Package-Version’; it will be used instead.
This is handy if ‘Version’ is an RCS id or something else that
cannot be parsed by ‘version-to-list’.
I'm also not sure we need to support packages with unusual versions
like RCS id's these days. Is that use case still relevant? Perhaps
we should simply deprecate the "Package-Version" header?
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 02 Jun 2024 11:08:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #47 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> > What about making `lm-version' handle the "package-version" header then
>>> > using `lm-version' in loaddefs-generate--parse-file? See patches.
>>>
>>> My main concern was if we want to have Package-Version always override
>>> Version, but if my patch modified loaddefs-gen, then I don't think there
>>> is much of a difference if we change lisp-mnt instead (in terms of the
>>> generality of the change).
>>>
>>> So I am fine with the change, and think we can merge it. Eli: Is master
>>> still fine for these kinds of changes?
>>
>> I think so, yes. But maybe I don't fully understand the effect of
>> this change? Can you describe it?
Sorry for the late response, but Stefan summaries the situation well
below.
>> I also added the other maintainers, in case they have opinions on
>> this.
>
> I think the first patch is right, i.e. to use
>
> (lm-version)
>
> instead of
>
> (lm-header "version")
>
> So let's install that one, I think.
I agree.
> The effect of the second patch is to change `lm-version` to look for a
> "Package-Version" header if there is no "Version" header.
>
> This has two problems:
>
> 1. We didn't do that until now, and it's not clear to me what is the
> issue that is prompting this change. The transient.el issue seems to
> have been fixed already.
>
> 2. The way I read the manual, it seems like "Package-Version" should be
> preferred over "Version", if it exists:
>
> ‘Package-Version’
> If ‘Version’ is not suitable for use by the package manager, then a
> package can define ‘Package-Version’; it will be used instead.
> This is handy if ‘Version’ is an RCS id or something else that
> cannot be parsed by ‘version-to-list’.
>
> I'm also not sure we need to support packages with unusual versions
> like RCS id's these days. Is that use case still relevant? Perhaps
> we should simply deprecate the "Package-Version" header?
FWIW I use this for some of my own scripts that I version using RCS, so
I'd appreciate it if that functionality would stay.
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 02 Jun 2024 12:11:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #50 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>> 2. The way I read the manual, it seems like "Package-Version" should be
>> preferred over "Version", if it exists:
>>
>> ‘Package-Version’
>> If ‘Version’ is not suitable for use by the package manager, then a
>> package can define ‘Package-Version’; it will be used instead.
>> This is handy if ‘Version’ is an RCS id or something else that
>> cannot be parsed by ‘version-to-list’.
>
> FWIW I use this for some of my own scripts that I version using RCS, so
> I'd appreciate it if that functionality would stay.
OK, so let's keep it. But shouldn't the below be the correct order
according to the above quoted documentation?
diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
index f111a77663c..5db0b50adc3 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
@@ -415,7 +415,8 @@ lm-version
"Return the version listed in file FILE, or current buffer if FILE is nil.
This can be found in an RCS or SCCS header."
(lm-with-file file
- (or (lm-header "version")
+ (or (lm-header "package-version")
+ (lm-header "version")
(let ((header-max (lm-code-start)))
(goto-char (point-min))
(cond
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 02 Jun 2024 13:13:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #53 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
>>> 2. The way I read the manual, it seems like "Package-Version" should be
>>> preferred over "Version", if it exists:
>>>
>>> ‘Package-Version’
>>> If ‘Version’ is not suitable for use by the package manager, then a
>>> package can define ‘Package-Version’; it will be used instead.
>>> This is handy if ‘Version’ is an RCS id or something else that
>>> cannot be parsed by ‘version-to-list’.
>>
>> FWIW I use this for some of my own scripts that I version using RCS, so
>> I'd appreciate it if that functionality would stay.
>
> OK, so let's keep it. But shouldn't the below be the correct order
> according to the above quoted documentation?
>
> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
> index f111a77663c..5db0b50adc3 100644
> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
> @@ -415,7 +415,8 @@ lm-version
> "Return the version listed in file FILE, or current buffer if FILE is nil.
> This can be found in an RCS or SCCS header."
> (lm-with-file file
> - (or (lm-header "version")
> + (or (lm-header "package-version")
> + (lm-header "version")
> (let ((header-max (lm-code-start)))
> (goto-char (point-min))
> (cond
Of course, that was also the change proposed in my first patch but I
didn't notice the change in Joseph's suggestion.
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 02 Jun 2024 18:28:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #56 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
> Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>
>>>> 2. The way I read the manual, it seems like "Package-Version" should be
>>>> preferred over "Version", if it exists:
>>>>
>>>> ‘Package-Version’
>>>> If ‘Version’ is not suitable for use by the package manager, then a
>>>> package can define ‘Package-Version’; it will be used instead.
>>>> This is handy if ‘Version’ is an RCS id or something else that
>>>> cannot be parsed by ‘version-to-list’.
>>>
>>> FWIW I use this for some of my own scripts that I version using RCS, so
>>> I'd appreciate it if that functionality would stay.
>>
>> OK, so let's keep it. But shouldn't the below be the correct order
>> according to the above quoted documentation?
>>
>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
>> index f111a77663c..5db0b50adc3 100644
>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
>> @@ -415,7 +415,8 @@ lm-version
>> "Return the version listed in file FILE, or current buffer if FILE is nil.
>> This can be found in an RCS or SCCS header."
>> (lm-with-file file
>> - (or (lm-header "version")
>> + (or (lm-header "package-version")
>> + (lm-header "version")
>> (let ((header-max (lm-code-start)))
>> (goto-char (point-min))
>> (cond
>
> Of course, that was also the change proposed in my first patch but I
> didn't notice the change in Joseph's suggestion.
Thanks for the correction. Are the attached patches appropriate?
[0001-Check-Package-Version-header-in-lm-version-also.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]
[0002-Use-lm-version-instead-of-lm-header-version.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 02 Jun 2024 18:41:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #59 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>> 2. The way I read the manual, it seems like "Package-Version" should be
>>>>> preferred over "Version", if it exists:
>>>>>
>>>>> ‘Package-Version’
>>>>> If ‘Version’ is not suitable for use by the package manager, then a
>>>>> package can define ‘Package-Version’; it will be used instead.
>>>>> This is handy if ‘Version’ is an RCS id or something else that
>>>>> cannot be parsed by ‘version-to-list’.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW I use this for some of my own scripts that I version using RCS, so
>>>> I'd appreciate it if that functionality would stay.
>>>
>>> OK, so let's keep it. But shouldn't the below be the correct order
>>> according to the above quoted documentation?
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
>>> index f111a77663c..5db0b50adc3 100644
>>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
>>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
>>> @@ -415,7 +415,8 @@ lm-version
>>> "Return the version listed in file FILE, or current buffer if FILE is nil.
>>> This can be found in an RCS or SCCS header."
>>> (lm-with-file file
>>> - (or (lm-header "version")
>>> + (or (lm-header "package-version")
>>> + (lm-header "version")
>>> (let ((header-max (lm-code-start)))
>>> (goto-char (point-min))
>>> (cond
>>
>> Of course, that was also the change proposed in my first patch but I
>> didn't notice the change in Joseph's suggestion.
>
> Thanks for the correction. Are the attached patches appropriate?
Unless I am forgetting something again, it looks good.
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Mon, 03 Jun 2024 17:26:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #62 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>> Of course, that was also the change proposed in my first patch but I
>> didn't notice the change in Joseph's suggestion.
Ah, right. I somehow missed that part.
> Thanks for the correction. Are the attached patches appropriate?
Looks good to me, except for a few comments below.
> From a666581f2a58568bb7f83a369e1040920a6b2c14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in>
> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 22:14:26 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Check Package-Version: header in lm-version also
Bonus points if you add a test for this one.
> * lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el (lm-version)
See CONTRIBUTE for details, but this should read:
* lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el (lm-version): Prefer version in the
"Package-Version:" header. (Bug#69528)
> ---
> lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
> index f111a77663c..5db0b50adc3 100644
> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el
> @@ -415,7 +415,8 @@ lm-version
> "Return the version listed in file FILE, or current buffer if FILE is nil.
> This can be found in an RCS or SCCS header."
It would be good to fix the docstring here to clarify that it can come
from the "Version" or "Package-Version" headers too.
> (lm-with-file file
> - (or (lm-header "version")
> + (or (lm-header "package-version")
> + (lm-header "version")
> (let ((header-max (lm-code-start)))
> (goto-char (point-min))
> (cond
> --
> 2.41.0
>
> From 6c4262d7236c64bbc938f7b4e76988d95049b7c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in>
> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 22:15:50 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Use lm-version instead of lm-header "version"
>
> bug#69528
>
> * lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el (loaddefs-generate--parse-file)
This should read something like this instead:
* lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el (loaddefs-generate--parse-file):
Prefer 'lm-version'. (Bug#69528)
> ---
> lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> index 50e90cdf94c..f0355b25f57 100644
> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/loaddefs-gen.el
> @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ loaddefs-generate--parse-file
> ;; loaddefs for packages so that `syntax-ppss' later gives
> ;; correct results.
> (emacs-lisp-mode)
> - (let ((version (lm-header "version"))
> + (let ((version (lm-version))
> package)
> (when (and version
> (setq version (ignore-errors (version-to-list version)))
> --
> 2.41.0
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Mon, 03 Jun 2024 19:26:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #65 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> * lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el (lm-version): Prefer version in the
> "Package-Version:" header. (Bug#69528)
BTW, I think this is a backward-incompatible change.
Whether we want `lm-version` to return the info from `Version:` or from
`Package-Version:` depends on what we want to do with it.
Stefan
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Mon, 03 Jun 2024 19:59:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #68 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> * lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el (lm-version): Prefer version in the
>> "Package-Version:" header. (Bug#69528)
>
> BTW, I think this is a backward-incompatible change.
>
> Whether we want `lm-version` to return the info from `Version:` or from
> `Package-Version:` depends on what we want to do with it.
When do we want lm-version to return Version and not Package-Version,
where a (lm-header "version") wouldn't serve as a more specific
replacement?
FWIW the function is used in a single place (in the core, lm-report-bug)
and both on ELPA and NonGNU ELPA, all instances appear to might as well
be using `package-get-version' (if it were not for the version of Emacs
they are depending on).
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Mon, 03 Jun 2024 20:39:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #71 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
>>> * lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el (lm-version): Prefer version in the
>>> "Package-Version:" header. (Bug#69528)
>> BTW, I think this is a backward-incompatible change.
>> Whether we want `lm-version` to return the info from `Version:` or from
>> `Package-Version:` depends on what we want to do with it.
> When do we want lm-version to return Version and not Package-Version,
> where a (lm-header "version") wouldn't serve as a more specific
> replacement?
I don't know, but if we never want to return the value of `Version:`
when there's a `Package-Version:` then we don't need `Package-Version:`
either (we should just replace the `Version:` field with the content of
`Package-Version:`).
IOW the very existence of `Package-Version:` is predicated on the desire
to distinguish the two.
Stefan
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:22:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #74 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>>> * lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el (lm-version): Prefer version in the
>>>> "Package-Version:" header. (Bug#69528)
>>> BTW, I think this is a backward-incompatible change.
>>> Whether we want `lm-version` to return the info from `Version:` or from
>>> `Package-Version:` depends on what we want to do with it.
AFAICT, we currently use it in `lm-report-bug' and with Joseph's patch
we will use it also for `loaddefs-generate--parse-file'.
>> When do we want lm-version to return Version and not Package-Version,
>> where a (lm-header "version") wouldn't serve as a more specific
>> replacement?
>
> I don't know, but if we never want to return the value of `Version:`
> when there's a `Package-Version:` then we don't need `Package-Version:`
> either (we should just replace the `Version:` field with the content of
> `Package-Version:`).
I don't have a strong opinion, but there seems to be a mismatch between
what the code does and what the documentation says.
"The version number comes from the ‘Package-Version’ header, if it
exists, or from the ‘Version’ header otherwise."
(info "(elisp) Simple Packages")
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:24:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #77 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>
>>> Of course, that was also the change proposed in my first patch but I
>>> didn't notice the change in Joseph's suggestion.
>
> Ah, right. I somehow missed that part.
>
>> Thanks for the correction. Are the attached patches appropriate?
>
> Looks good to me, except for a few comments below.
[...]
I'll be happy to make those changes if we decide to move forward with
the general idea of this patch.
Thanks!
Joseph
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#69528; Package
emacs.
(Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:56:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #80 received at 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
>>>>> * lisp/emacs-lisp/lisp-mnt.el (lm-version): Prefer version in the
>>>>> "Package-Version:" header. (Bug#69528)
>>>> BTW, I think this is a backward-incompatible change.
>>>> Whether we want `lm-version` to return the info from `Version:` or from
>>>> `Package-Version:` depends on what we want to do with it.
> AFAICT, we currently use it in `lm-report-bug' and with Joseph's patch
> we will use it also for `loaddefs-generate--parse-file'.
`lm-report-bug` does not seem directly related to ELPA packaging, so it
makes sense to use just `Version:` there, which is presumably the format
that the maintainer favors (where the `Package-Version:` header is
instead the format that the maintainer was forced to add to accommodate
the restrictions of the ELPA protocol).
In contrast, `loaddefs-generate--parse-file' is about generating info
for `package.el`, so this one *does* want to use `Package-Version:`
if it's present.
Of course `lm-report-bug` would work likely fine as well if it uses
`Package-Version:`. The distinction is probably not that important in
that case.
> I don't have a strong opinion, but there seems to be a mismatch between
> what the code does and what the documentation says.
>
> "The version number comes from the ‘Package-Version’ header, if it
> exists, or from the ‘Version’ header otherwise."
>
> (info "(elisp) Simple Packages")
Definitely. My only point was that the patch changed `lm-version` in
a backward incompatible way (tho arguably a minor one) without even
mentioning it.
Maybe it's OK to do that, but let's do it consciously.
If not, then we'll presumably add a new `lm-package-version` (which
wouldn't look at RCS keywords either).
Stefan
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 11 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.