GNU bug report logs - #76567
30.1; package-install-upgrade-built-in upgrades built-ins to the same version

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 76567 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 76567 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#76567: 30.1; package-install-upgrade-built-in upgrades
 built-ins to the same version
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:48:05 +0000

Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com> writes:

> "replace with newer versions from the archives" is not what's happening.
> It seems to replace with identical versions, just from the archives.

The issue is that `package-install-upgrade-built-in' uses the phrasing

  If disabled, then ‘package-install’ will not suggest to replace a
  built-in package with a (possibly newer) version from a package archive.
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which is not to say that the behaviour you are describing is not
good...  A related issue here is that package.el has two separate
upgrade procedures (package-upgrade-all and the list-package one) that
cause these kinds of irregularities to pop up.  I have been planning to
rewrite the package list interface to use the same logic as the
commands, but I have to find the time to do that properly :/

>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:39 AM Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> >> From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
>> >> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:35:10 -0500
>> >>
>> >> As part of my production upgrade to 30.1, I wrote a program to install
>> >> my local ELPA tree from scratch, and take the opportunity to prune and
>> >> curate packages.
>> >>
>> >> One thing that surprised me, that I didn't notice in 29.4, is that if
>> >> 'package-install-upgrade-built-in' is non-nil, 'package-list-packages'
>> >> reports built-ins needing upgrades from ELPA but to the *identical
>> >> versions* in the 30.1 tree.  I was expecting upgrades to be actual
>> >> upgrades, not side-grades, as they say.  The reason I didn't see
>> >> this on 29.4, is that the distro versions were older than ELPA so I
>> >> was happy to take the upgrades.  This does not appear to be a
>> >> regression, just a general bug report.
>> >
>> > Philip, could you please look into this?
>>
>> (emacs) Package Installation says:
>>
>>    If you customize ‘package-install-upgrade-built-in’ to a non-‘nil’
>> value, be very careful when using commands that update many packages at
>> once, like ‘package-upgrade-all’ and ‘U’ in the package menu: those
>> might overwrite built-in packages that you didn't intent to replace with
>> newer versions from the archives.  Don't use these bulk commands if you
>> want to update only a small number of built-in packages.
>>
>> I read this as that OPs behaviour what the option intends to do.
>>

Previous Next

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