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: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:30:49 +0300 Message-ID: <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkq9rpy.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm898xb9.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6tlleg0.fsf@gmail.com> <8335558qc7.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd5761f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7djrgr.fsf@gmail.com> <83o7nt73za.fsf@gnu.org> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27387"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 13 07:31:22 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 1pmpYH-0006rL-3v for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:31:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmpY5-0001hA-Hb; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:31:09 -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 1pmpXz-0001dt-75 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:31:04 -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 1pmpXy-0001zt-DQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:31:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmpXy-00019R-4v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:31:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 05:31:02 +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=B62720.16813638104046 (code B ref 62720); Thu, 13 Apr 2023 05:31:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Apr 2023 05:30:10 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42370 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmpX8-00013C-8U for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:30:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56294) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmpX6-00011k-Rl for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:30:09 -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 1pmpX1-0001fM-7X; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:30:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=M9thaa25xasGw2eEQXM03njFsu0uFfnz1rD++OXLVv8=; b=aavhBRZS9MK6Dk8P2I8T dZGPrv0ynBP2U015wCHfPEOENXczPLzbQNMLMPRW9Dty0JeKo3RDfVI7/+witmc958owsva8XJbpX D7bRYnsa/YrCY3ocQv5D4EO0ngaiNysPWVgJOh9uUt8Ci0hKPxQXe5FB6drbZULf+LhYgvYNJMoCe sKBDAycKyldYax2DfwHFXfR1pDtl4vjbVzVTCBy7BBayTttFeXYrDlOmaupAy6ORh7dVJXMMZR5vl ep4UWQm0fPFhvF7SD/aQFkoSU4wirP7DIgQDfyQvISh5x71DCV4ajrTmLQEYmVMExS/woYmHToECJ iznBEpP2i7+1lw==; 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 1pmpWz-0006UM-TW; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:30:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:39:20 +0000) 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:259833 Archived-At: > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: João Távora , > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:39:20 +0000 > > >> Please, in normal non-shouting case, explain to me how you think > >> that the behavior of an existing > >> command can be changed with "completely separate code". > > > > I already did: either (1) add a prefix argument to an existing > > command, which will then trigger the new behavior, or (2) add a > > separate command. > > Here you have (1): Thanks. This is almost on-target, but it modifies package-compute-transaction. Is that necessary? > +(defun package--upgradable-built-in-p (package) > + "Check if a built-in PACKAGE can be upgraded. > +This command differs from `package-built-in-p' in that it only ^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is not a command, this is a function. Also, the name has a problem I pointed out earlier in this discussion: "upgradeable" does not tell well enough what the function tests. > @@ -2187,7 +2210,9 @@ package-install > "Install the package PKG. > PKG can be a `package-desc' or a symbol naming one of the > available packages in an archive in `package-archives'. When > -called interactively, prompt for the package name. > +called interactively, prompt for the package name. When invoked > +with a prefix argument, the prompt will include built-in packages > +that can be upgraded via an archive. I wonder whether an invocation with the prefix argument should include _only_ built-in packages in the prompt? This could be a useful feature regardless, and so would allow us to keep this option for future uses. Finally, there's still discussion going on whether built-in packages should be handled only by package-update, not by package-install, since built-in packages are always "installed". WDYT?