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: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:30:20 +0300 Message-ID: <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87ile6o2ov.fsf@posteo.net> <87y1mz38rl.fsf@posteo.net> <87ile2n0kn.fsf@gmail.com> <83v8i2abqi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2ilgx7.fsf@gmail.com> <83a5ze9uc1.fsf@gnu.org> <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> 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="32779"; 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 Wed Apr 12 14:30:14 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 1pmZc5-0008JS-R0 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:30:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZbx-0005Sx-Bn; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:30:05 -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 1pmZbu-0005Se-Mx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:30:02 -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 1pmZbu-0003g1-Do for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:30:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZbu-0007PC-85 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:30:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:30:02 +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=B62720.168130259028429 (code B ref 62720); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:30:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Apr 2023 12:29:50 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39249 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZbh-0007OS-MW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:29:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50428) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZbd-0007OD-Mi for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:29:48 -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 1pmZbW-0003ap-Py; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:29:40 -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=pZx6NDCA1geUdAdLoyBCwhYG2u2RyRHS5mTBhthTXEk=; b=VAnEPxlbK7oPxbuvglkl a3+xhYMI8RNnnkpxJDIbXHsLsB/L3UhP4A0VehFmrwEaYoGZPbm2liGPwRXR4pbMa5WqL2JW/1uNs slPc0VK4YU08BNnk+M6dXMhB3DqA9uif/KU7GmD7ktGgSOXB0g5BhwuOoNC3B09Kl0FtjgyPKWLmR nnlVOplOal3MYgQ3dcdHsgUsViS+5Ib3gzAiSLsJX1dAtbzjxT9NwBGZz1g/RDdHF0RUQpe9ICgUP EExq9PxfmW9h8U24W9dpfYjXw3Kkmemn2yqPF2cmo+6G6PIB+L0XrLSKHcS/KQ0lrWcKa26ZabrC3 bh4YUx+Kpe8sew==; 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 1pmZbT-0006RR-DV; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:29:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:09 +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:259733 Archived-At: > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: João Távora , > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:09 +0000 > > > Yes, if Philip and Stefan don't object. But, since there will be a > > command for updating core packages, doesn't this go against your > > desire not to change the UX? > > After thinking about this for a bit, I think that the right approach is > to use package-install instead of writing a separate command. After > all, this will make the behaviour of package-install consistent with > that of the package menu. Is this for master or for the release branch? And I thought we all agreed built-in packages need special treatment anyway, didn't we? Then why having a separate command is not a natural next step? > It might work but it should be tested somewhat thoroughly before the > patch is applied. In the meantime, I just finished a similar approach > that does not modify `package-installed-p', but just adds another > utility function: A new utility function is fine by me, even if this is e branch. But I don't quite understand how this is supposed to work in package-install to allow updating built-in packages, and do that in a way that will not touch the existing code for non-built-in packages in significant ways (assuming you propose this from the release branch). Can you elaborate on that? > +(defun package-core-p (package) > + "Return non-nil the built-in version of PACKAGE is loaded." Didn't you say the "core" terminology was confusing people? > + (let ((package (if (package-desc-p package) > + (package-desc-name package) > + package))) > + (and (assq package (package--alist)) > + (package-built-in-p package)))) It sounds like this doesn't check whether a package is "core", it checks whether it's built-in and can be updated? So maybe the name should be changed to reflect that? And the doc string as well (what it means by "is loaded")? Thanks.