GNU bug report logs - #76568
'package-install' should not install duplicate packages

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 76568 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#76568: 'package-install' should not install duplicate packages
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 16:02:57 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 2:55 PM Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 12:00 PM Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 9:34 PM Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > As part of my production upgrade to 30.1, and before I wrote a program
>>> to install my local
>>> > ELPA tree from scratch, I tried to first curate my packages and change
>>> from MELPA to
>>> > generally equivalent GNU ELPA or non-GNU ELPA archives.  The result
>>> was that I had two of
>>> > each package installed.
>>> >
>>> > I think there's a bug in 'package-install' which, when invoked from
>>> > 'package-install-button-action', processes the new package spec, and
>>> incorrectly checks to
>>> > see if the package is already installed.  Interactive invocation of
>>> 'package-install' yields the
>>> > package name from the prompt, not its archive description.
>>> >
>>> > If the below is correct, I can submit a patch to make
>>> 'package-install' behave like
>>> > 'package-reinstall' for the non-interactive case.
>>>
>>> Please submit a patch, but could we also have tests for this please?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>
>> Patch attached.  It prevents the menu-driven case from erasing the
>> already installed message.  It could suggest to the user to remove and then
>> install or we could offer to use package upgrade to the chosen
>> package-desc.  At the very least, the patch prevents duplicates.
>>
>
> Thinking about it a bit more, this patch needs a little more work.  The
> menu-driven package "upgrade" in describe-package-1 workflow will be interrupted by
> this patch.  It does not differentiate install vs. upgrade and calls
> package-install which will now complain the package already exists.  This
> should be changed to run package-upgrade.  I'll take a look.
>
> Any feedback on the minimal patch is still welcome in the meantime.
>

This patch now accommodates both scenarios.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[0001-Correct-package-install-to-detect-installed-packages.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Previous Next

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