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: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 14:20:12 +0300 Message-ID: <83h6t817v7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <35638c9d-e13f-fad8-5f95-ea03d65d4aa2@gmail.com> <87a5z3izst.fsf@web.de> <83v8hr7qk9.fsf@gnu.org> <83pm7z7nkc.fsf@gnu.org> <4b63ef62-5e1c-3dcf-ec7b-06b69e79133b@gutov.dev> <83o7nj7mfn.fsf@gnu.org> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <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> <835y9o2uh2.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7218"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 22 13:21:24 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 1pqBIy-0001h4-5p for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:21:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBIe-0007PC-3N; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:21:04 -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 1pqBIc-0007On-Ku for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:21:02 -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 1pqBIc-0001vN-4i for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:21:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBIb-0004r7-JU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:21:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:21:01 +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=B62720.168216240618335 (code B ref 62720); Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:21:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2023 11:20:06 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41945 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBHi-0004ld-0n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:20:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34874) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqBHd-0004kz-Cr for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:20:05 -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 1pqBHX-0001X6-8u; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:19:55 -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=U7qOH+V0MC+UdKED3pS0QSrACzh51xjm9TL51CVtuUU=; b=LBWWDgywDTFm ut5fiwJaEviqS9/W1JXYjO91wduR1WZE/P80fbkXb8kq50XfcmeFMXyE2gwx1i6FlLVdzSr0n85Tr cTZVTN2/89Cn44xDMJxrr414qvawmCiMw4TFMoL8xd+rr5PtqrRLJ5MUB8RJnJBYcVQY/4ljppKEi /1oWdLT3eTXeTctMIT/h4JExLh5lOBu1Jf8Z09b/vwNC8SUdYcEDVMJfpm4metExy3v7iPEotZfDt BEIoz2BMiWVVzOd2IVel6u5dKfeoQzOcIXwoFiN99+pEhNnWlfCyblU/8yhXD8G4pyTdAhRbYpSmv t5EU5U9n02dNEgSY4d0zrA==; 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 1pqBHW-0007J8-NS; Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:19:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:48:41 +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:260458 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:48:41 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > >> The user option I was thinking of would probably be called a little > >> shorter: package-upgrade-built-in. And it would only affect the upgrader > >> commands. > > > > We could rename the existing option, if the name is the problem. > > Otherwise, I don't see why we would need two separate options: they do > > the same job and have the same meaning from the user's POV. > > The name is a problem, yes. What could also be a problem is a user that > customizes this option to have package-update update builtin packages (a > reasonable behavior that should be on by default anyway), will also > automatically have change the behavior of package-install to be more > surprising (install an already installed package). It's the same change in behavior, since for built-in packages "install" and "upgrade" is the same. > Further, if we have a user option affect package-update, we'll have to > alter package-update-all and package-manu-mark-for-update in the same > patch (otherwise we'll have more nonsense on our hands). Whereas the > first version I sent is more minimal. How is this relevant to whether we need one or two separate user options? > >> All this is to say, the first step (upgrading Eglot to the version from > >> ELPA) will be less user-friendly compared to the other UIs we have. But > >> it's probably manageable, especially if documented well. > > > > I don't see why it would be less user-friendly. > > The same reason we do have commands with "upgrade" in their names, > rather than force everybody to use the "install" and "delete" ones. I still don't think this is less user-friendly. > > One again: commit 580d8278c5f48 solved precisely the problem which > > opened this bug report, nothing more, nothing less. > > It doesn't seem like the originator of the report agrees with that. I'm aware of that. But you are talking to me, not to him, and the above is my opinion. I also agree that the solution is not ideal, just the best I could agree to. > >> - package-install which will install the latest version of a package, > >> but only if it's not installed; > >> - package-menu-mark-install, which will mark a specific version for > >> installation, disregarding whether some earlier version is already > >> installed; the previous version will remain installed still. > > > > Which is again a breaking behavior change, AFAIU. Is this a good idea > > so late in the development of Emacs 29? > > The above is not a breaking change, it's how things work already. And > have been working for quite a while. That's not what I understand. E.g., package-install will install even if the package is already installed. But if this already works, then why are you bringing this up? > >> But even if we decide that we want to eliminate that split, doing *that* > >> would really be a breaking change. I don't have a reasonable plan to > >> present for doing that in Emacs 29, so far. > > > > There's no "split". What I wanted to point out is that we don't seem > > to have a clear vision of these two commands, since they are confusing > > intertwined. In fact, one could argue that package-upgrade in its > > current form is simply a convenience shortcut for "delete old and > > install new". > > What should an upgrade command do, in your opinion, if not "delete old > and install new"? Why is this question important, in the context of the current discussion? It's a tangent. All I wanted to point out is that IMO there's no "split" that we want to eliminate.