GNU bug report logs -
#76978
31.0.50; Archive information not displayed for installed packages in *Packages* buffer
Previous Next
Full log
Message #14 received at 76978 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
david <davidimagid <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
>> (Tip: When creating a bug report that you assume specific people are
>> interested in, adding a X-Debuggs-CC header will send the people a
>> message and add them directly to the CCs.)
>>
> Got it, thanks for the tip!
>
>> david <davidimagid <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> When a package is installed or is a dependency, the "Archive" column in
>>> the *Packages* buffer does not display the archive information. This
>>> happens because the function `describe-package-1` in `package.el` skips
>>> the Archive section for installed packages due to the following
>>> conditional check:
>>>
>>> (unless (and pkg-dir (not archive)) ; Installed pkgs don't have archive.
>>> (package--print-help-section "Archive"
>>> (or archive "n/a")))
>>>
>>> The expected behavior is that the "Archive" column should display the
>>> archive name (e.g., "gnu", "nongnu", "other unofficial archive") for
>>> packages in the installed or dependency status. This would be helpful
>>> because:
>>>
>>> 1. Traceability: It would allow users to easily identify the source archive
>>> of a package, which is useful for debugging, auditing, and understanding
>>> the package's origin.
>>>
>>> 2. Security: It would provide users with additional context about the
>>> package's source, helping them make informed decisions about the code
>>> they use.
>>>
>>> 3. Consistency: Archive information is part of the package metadata, and
>>> displaying it consistently would improve the user experience by making
>>> this information readily available.
>>>
>>> Currently, the archive information is not displayed for installed or
>>> dependency packages, which makes it harder to track the source of these
>>> packages. This behavior is implemented in the `describe-package-1`
>>> function in `package.el`, starting around line 2890. A review of this
>>> behavior would be appreciated to ensure users have access to this helpful
>>> metadata.
>>
>> As mentioned in another thread, my suggestion to solve this issue is to
>> track the installation-source in the `package-desc-extras' plist. This
>> seems to be the least invasive approach I can think of, which should be
>> simple to implement.
>>
>> The question then is how and where to display the installation-source?.
>>
> Agreed, storing the source in `package-desc-extras` is clean and
> practical. Displaying it in the "Archive" column makes sense.
As long as it doesn't get cramped, that should be fine. Mentioning it
in the describe-package buffer would be useful as well.
> Is there
> a development branch for `package.el`, or should I create a feature
> branch from `master`?
There is no special branch, master is fine.
Thanks!
This bug report was last modified 88 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.