From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:43:30 +0300 Message-ID: <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17662"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 25 14:44:22 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1prI1t-0004Oi-UE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:44:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prI1f-0008Tt-6K; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:44:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prI1d-0008Se-BG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:44:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prI1a-0008V2-Ef for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:44:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prI1a-0005pR-Al for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:44:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 12:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 62720 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 62720-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B62720.168242659822343 (code B ref 62720); Tue, 25 Apr 2023 12:44:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Apr 2023 12:43:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51641 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prI0s-0005oH-6K for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:43:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52396) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1prI0l-0005nz-05 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:43:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prI0e-0008Qq-U2; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:43:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=pReijs9rCVnk/WBFOBxi1X9r5JX8wW4Zhiti0EDBJqI=; b=gMLXzY09Dv3s YKpydXKPH51TVg2Xi0sBEqna7dHJ6//NUtUhfE/sHl0IPt7OoKX9YTDSw0HFLyB7Sm/rXLmBMbqdJ KrK6f1krAm8zwf/Y5q6dKuElnqkDK+frtcpUpz3ppFnjQEXpbP4KIK9N0h5V9tElmteEaJ02gaTh/ mOSHOcP8Ykf1U1gdaYdTog3ILLIRsMq0YQFFxjPEjFO/fXzRwaXuO+NwySUzT+IJ+ReT/ddT2HqIA AQQgx2AKD9AEjGrlsT1BGkccu5l0IQjpadFnvGXMBjPEPRj9ZsUaehLBjp9MYYMrCZjDXnQhRf/II uzjEixSCquQCJAoU9irxMQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prI0e-0000aL-Bx; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:43:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:08:15 +0300) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:260617 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:08:15 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > >> -(defun package-update (name) > >> - "Update package NAME if a newer version exists." > >> +(defun package-update (name &optional update-built-ins) > >> + "Update package NAME if a newer version exists. > >> + > >> +Only packages installed from ELPA are allowed to be updated this > >> +way. > > > > I'm not sure I understand where this restriction comes from. Did the > > original code enforce it? > > I'm not sure what you mean about "enforce it". That's the essence of the > bug here: this function's inability to upgrade built-in packages > (packages installed not from ELPA). Since you are asking to keep that > behavior by default, it now needs to be documented. Oh, then I misunderstood what that says. I thought is says ELPA as opposed to, say, MELPA. So I think we need to rephrase that. Something like Packages which are part of the Emacs distribution cannot be updated that way. > >> Regarding obeying package-install-upgrade-built-in, I think it would > >> need to be renamed, and both package-update-all and > >> package-menu-mark-upgrades would need to be made obey it too. All that > >> could be done in a subsequent change. > > > > If the option will affect more than just package-install, it should > > indeed be renamed. > > That will require some more work. On package-menu-mark-upgrades in > particular. > > TBH, I'm getting more doubts about this change now. > > What will we do in Emacs 30? If we add the new argument, it will be hard > to back out of it, to default to the proper behavior. I thought that in Emacs 30 we could make the user option be non-nil by default, assuming we will decide not to treat built-in packages specially in this regard. Then the additional argument will become much less important, perhaps for some rare situations or something. > Perhaps we should just wait and then fix it on master properly. > Workarounds exist, after all. I won't object, but I thought you and others wanted to have package-install and package-update to behave consistently in this respect.