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: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:05:41 +0300 Message-ID: <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <1a5e5837-513b-84d8-3260-cdbf42b71267@gutov.dev> <83sfcz9rf2.fsf@gnu.org> <09a49ab9-ac72-36a9-3e68-9c633710eba7@gutov.dev> <83r0sh8i1q.fsf@gnu.org> <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> 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="15034"; 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 Fri Apr 21 13:06:14 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 1ppoaj-0003ZS-U4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:06:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ppoaZ-0006YD-Pm; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:06:03 -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 1ppoaY-0006VP-MS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:06:02 -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 1ppoaY-0002o5-BC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:06:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppoaX-0005jQ-SF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:06:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:06:01 +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=B62720.168207513721997 (code B ref 62720); Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:06:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Apr 2023 11:05:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39458 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppoa8-0005ii-As for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:05:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55854) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ppoa5-0005iS-M2 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:05:34 -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 1ppoZz-0002fE-8V; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:05:27 -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=TlzM3rgssFFbwbsGMbJnliiSiEBAKKnbXZr1LDXSfSs=; b=G1ZVEa/fvHGLdMHUznw3 2AuK3EwVN3PfjV51P32s3NjrzluGYQMLEzdQGoYK7+a/WHGZw00Cn2Bv5sNcbqseh8XEg2jahg7Uy VQOe9+JFNxJfNQBOHoASJ/bRNFa2M6YgkwYXrdhrWoZL6JhAnCSzKKVSWGvTpjA7VmfHoQgv/wTIk zorPvMex47F/lYCxLC+22vLXc4OPlIOrllsj8QQb3SvvKmd+tyLuwDQ6QSFrbKsTrB/tJUiLeoh5F 4D3pHxZqBRBgIlfwr5l30unW4P9hiQ2vx7G6Lmslc/yvbgcIo1zVL0PSmOGpJJhGk37KhnHnzW9VX lH3WAYXMIrtjgw==; 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 1ppoZy-0004U4-OL; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:05:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:19:39 +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:260376 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:19:39 +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 > > On 21/04/2023 09:37, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> Why list the commands people use to install packages if we're talking > >> about upgrading them? > > > > I said "to install and upgrade", not just "install". > > I listed the upgrade commands. Yes, and I think we should consider both install and upgrade commands. > >> Hopefully we'll decide that 'package-install' > >> won't upgrade packages because it hasn't done that in the past. > > > > But it does upgrade non-built-in packages, doesn't it? > > Apparently not. I didn't remember whether it does, and I deduced that it > does just from reading this discussion previously, but it does not. > > E.g. just now pressing 'U' after 'M-x list-packages' showed me that I > have available upgrades for a lot of packages. But still if I evaluate > > (package-install 'sml-mode) > > where sml-mode is one of said packages, I just get the message: > > ‘sml-mode’ is already installed > > > And at least > > João (and I think others as well) expected it to upgrade Eglot even > > though it is now built in. > > I think he wants that because this way (package-install 'eglot) and > (use-package eglot :ensure t) could match the behavior of Emacs 28 with > an empty init directory. Backward compatibility and all that. But if, with older Emacsen, package-install would refuse to update to a newer version of Eglot if _some_ older version of Eglot is already installed, then where's the problem with the default behavior of package-install? it behaves exactly like in previous versions of Emacs. And why is this a problem for users of Eglot, if they couldn't use package-install more than once for Eglot anyway? Something is amiss here. > But I think that's questionable, semantically. Given that Eglot is > already "installed". Though, of course, one could argue that a bundled > package is not exactly installed, but then we should change what > 'package-installed-p' does as well. And think hard before doing that. I'd question why we have two commands instead of just one, but that's probably water under the bridge at this point. > >>>> - package-upgrade (nee package-update) doesn't upgrade builtin packages > >>>> that never been upgraded before. It's a bug. Hopefully not too hard to fix. > >>> > >>> I'm okay with adding the same prefix argument to package-upgrade, > >>> which would then allow upgrading a built-in package. IOW, a change > >>> similar to what we did in package-install -- provided that the change > >>> is safe enough to go into Emacs 29. > >> > >> If we agree it's a bug, why don't we just fix it? > > > > Precisely because, as with package-install, this is a bug for some and > > a feature for others, depending on whether people do or don't want the > > built-in packages to be upgraded by default. > > I'm having a hard time imagining someone evaluating (package-upgrade > 'eglot) without intention to upgrade it to the latest version. Or > invoking it interactively with same argument, expecting a different result. In interactive invocation, package-upgrade calls completing-read with its 4th argument non-nil, so you cannot select a package which is not in the collection returned by package--updateable-packages. What I meant above is to allow that collection to include built-in packages as optional behavior. I just tried invoking package-update for ElDoc, and I get "No match" after typing "eldoc" to its prompt, although eldoc version 1.14.0 is in the list presented by list-packages as "available". > >> 'package-update' is an > >> interactive function which itself it called from only one place: > >> 'package-update-all', and since the plan is to improve both, we can make > >> sure they only do what we ask of them: package-update will upgrade > >> builtins when invoked directly, and package-update-all will upgrade them > >> only when the builtin has been upgraded before (making it not a builtin > >> anymore), or a new user option is set. > > > > This is one possibility, and it might make sense to some users. But I > > don't think we can be sure it will make sense to an overwhelming > > majority of the users. > > Hence the user option? Which one? Are you suggesting to add a new one? If so, why not use the one we already added, package-install-upgrade-built-in? > But okay, this particular addition, though trivial, we could probably > postpone until Emacs 30, or even avoid adding at all. It is indeed not > obvious that people will really need it, although If by "this particular addition" you mean to allow package-update to update built-in packages, then I thought adding that for consistency with package-install was one of your main bothers? Or what am I missing? > (setq package-upgradable-builtins '(eglot use-package)) > (package-upgrade-all) > ;; or M-x package-upgrade-all > ;; or 'U' in the list-packages menu > > seems like a plausible scenario for a certain kind of user. Why not treat the fact that some version was already installed from ELPA as an indication that the user wants this? > Because > package-upgrade does not have a menu entry, or a button anywhere, > whereas package-upgradable-builtins can be altered from the Customize UI. Maybe marking a package in the list for update could be interpreted as "upgrade that, no questions asked", and we will need no user options? > >>> We could make it do that if > >>> package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil -- again, if such a change > >>> could be safe enough. If not, then the same workaround as for > >>> package-upgrade would do here, I suppose? > >> > >> What workaround would that be? use-package is not invoked interactively > >> -- there is no prefix argument to pass. > > > > The workaround is to manually install the package from ELPA, once, > > using "C-u M-x package-install RET". > > That's not the use-package workflow. The use-package workflow should perhaps get a separate and different solution. > >>>> Whereas I think we originally only wanted that for Eglot and maybe > >>>> for use-package. > >>> > >>> "We" never did want that. João did, for obvious reasons, but that was > >>> never my intent. The issue is indeed more general: what should > >>> package-install and package.el in general do with built-in packages > >>> for which a newer version is on ELPA? > >> > >> It could continue doing what it's done before: when a package is already > >> installed, abort. For upgrading, we should recommend commands with > >> "upgrade" in their names. > > > > If people agree with that, I don't think I'll object. But this is in > > a sense a breaking change: package-install will only install, and > > thereafter users will need to use package-upgrade. Some might dislike > > such behavior changes. And we will need to make sure that all the > > available methods of "installing" do not "upgrade", for consistency. > > Yeah, apparently it won't be a breaking change, or a change at all. I'm not sure, see above. Also, when you mark packages for update from the list presented by list-packages, the menu entry says i Mark for Install and its help-echo says "Mark a package for installation and move to the next line", so we already confuse "install" and "upgrade". > >>>> For this and other minor reasons I would suggest reverting > >>>> 580d8278c5f48. > >>> > >>> Not going to happen, not unless someone comes up with a better > >>> solution that is much better and still safe enough. Personally, I > >>> don't believe such a solution exists, since we don't really know the > >>> answer to the above question. > >> > >> Could you specify which problem it's currently solving? Some particular > >> scenario. > > > > The scenario which started this bug report, see the message whose URL > > I mentioned above. IOW, we now allow users to explicitly request that > > package-install includes built-in packages in the list of candidates, > > and will therefore allow to upgrade them. > > After we fix 'package-upgrade', users will be able to 'M-x > package-upgrade RET eglot RET'. This goes back to the issue of having two confusingly-similar but different commands, as mentioned above. I guess we should first make up our minds what, if anything, we want to do about this.