GNU bug report logs -
#72141
29.4; package-upgrade vs package-load-list
Previous Next
Full log
Message #17 received at 72141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
> Cc: Thierry Volpiatto <thievol <at> posteo.net>, 72141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:47:44 +0000
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> From: Thierry Volpiatto <thievol <at> posteo.net>
> >> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:46:37 +0000
> >>
> >>
> >> I think there is a bug here, but please verify with following recipe as
> >> I don't use widely package installation, at least for myself. When reading
> >> the code I believe it is reproductible as well on emacs-30+.
> >>
> >> 1) Install package foo and bar.
> >> 2) Disable them in package-load-list ((foo nil) (bar nil) all).
> >> 3) Wait some time until foo and/or bar have new versions available.
> >> 4) Call package-upgrade-all. It will call package-upgrade on foo
> >> and bar (and possibly others). When package-upgrade find foo
> >> package it will (1) delete it and (2) call package-install which
> >> will refuse to install (error) because foo is disabled.
> >>
> >> As a result we have lost foo package, it is now uninstalled.
> >> Same problem with M-x package-upgrade, foo and bar are listed in
> >> completion and made available whereas they are going to fail to
> >> upgrade.
> >
> > Philip, any comments or suggestions?
>
> The issue is that we don't install a package if it is disabled. So
> either we allow installing (but don't activate) disabled packages, or we
> ignore disabled packages during upgrades.
The latter, I'd say. It makes little sense to upgrade disabled
packages.
This bug report was last modified 310 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.