GNU bug report logs -
#71356
use-package doesn't load org from elpa
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, paaguti <at> gmail.com, 71356 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 04:17:21 -0400
>
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
> > Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
> >>> Cc: Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <paaguti <at> gmail.com>, acorallo <at> gnu.org,
> >>> 71356 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >>> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 06:15:44 +0000
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the delayed response; I don't think that has to be expected.
> >>> While use-package can utilise package.el for package management, my
> >>> impression is that it is at liberty to be more flexible/declarative.
> >>
> >> Doesn't use-package utilize package.el already?
> >>
> >> If not, how does it handle installation and upgrades? by its own code?
> >
> > By default it uses package.el, but there is an option to change it.
> >
> >>> > Do you have package-install-upgrade-built-in set non-nil? If not, can
> >>> > you set it non-nil and try the recipe again?
> >>>
> >>> I have tried it out myself, and it doesn't appear to do anything. The
> >>> issue looks like that `package-installed-p' doesn't respect
> >>> package-install-upgrade-built-in or :pin.
> >>
> >> We should fix that, I think. If package-install-upgrade-built-in is
> >> non-nil, use-package should upgrade built-in packages.
> >>
> >>> > As for a feature request: what exactly is the feature requested here?
> >>> > Are you saying that use-package should automatically upgrade built-in
> >>> > packages? If so, I don't think this will fly, since it would mean
> >>> > inconsistencies with package-install.
> >>>
> >>> IIUC the feature would be that if a use-package form has a
> >>>
> >>> :pin gnu
> >>>
> >>> argument, then this is an indication that we want to install the package
> >>> from GNU ELPA, disregarding the fact that Emacs already has a built-in
> >>> version of the same package. Sort of a package-local version of
> >>> `package-install-upgrade-built-in'.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure. People tend to copy/paste recipes from the Internet
> >> without really understanding what they do. I think a simple :pin
> >> should not be sufficient, we need some specialized keyword (in
> >> addition to supporting package-install-upgrade-built-in).
> >
> > To me :pin would make perfect sense, as it explicitly expresses what
> > archive we want to follow for package upgrades.
>
> +1, also use-package interface is very declarative and I'm not sure
> having it influenced by a dynamic var would match user expected
> behavior.
If you prefer, we could add a new :foo keyword to mean this. But
unconditionally changing what :pin means in these cases is out of the
question.
This bug report was last modified 185 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.