GNU bug report logs - #69528
30.0.50; [BUG] transient.el is not a member of package--builtin-versions

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: eliz <at> gnu.org, 69528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#69528: 30.0.50; [BUG] transient.el is not a member of package--builtin-versions
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 17:45:21 -0700

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.

Previous Next

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