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: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:39:03 +0300 Message-ID: <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <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> <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> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25587"; 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 Sun Apr 23 08:39:25 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 1pqTNd-0006Uk-Bk for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 08:39:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pqTNK-0003yV-1J; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:39:06 -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 1pqTNH-0003yD-75 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:39:03 -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 1pqTNG-000054-U4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:39:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqTNG-0002HT-IW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:39:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 06:39:02 +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=B62720.16822319368755 (code B ref 62720); Sun, 23 Apr 2023 06:39:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Apr 2023 06:38:56 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44530 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqTN9-0002H8-IB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:38:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38508) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pqTN6-0002Gt-Ds for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:38:53 -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 1pqTMz-0008Vs-4D; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:38:45 -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=GL9uQFhM6WoROUTqc39AEG6wkfqbSCR6V5AdhVGnjfY=; b=ObHKWLSuP1Gt 1y0V1wiwBuMv0FKkQtE238tLdjI3xzCE2n5TpZqpuQcHbtzpR9JNcguaG6+HJjw19hLEzRLbMGCWd PVxMIjwwZFS+vSmMHTDQWZPxRj3m8t9H2nTC47zp0FtrNmrdj5JjdIbO/V36vPudgeeWOcv8PX9Y3 cQIzvZH3//F+urWV+wdfocJXKVK5Ctk6FCSc9/T+A9NJ0KnB2yQPZ9SWPQ1VAuFdsFpvm4EErndq8 nkzKr66VEB7Zzjkz3ImNPr95JINH7rxEHrljjxc2AWopl5DgYJogvTt150edg1EpdaQTVdn9mPow1 P8Vy3ghSblYGGKhyRhrvOA==; 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 1pqTMx-0002Iv-Bk; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:38:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:46:05 +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:260497 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 02:46:05 +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 > > >>> And I thought I've explained why I didn't see a need for another > >>> option. > >> > >> I also don't see the point of using an option here. > > > > We must not change past behavior unconditionally and by default, not > > this close to the release. > > We're still allowed bugfixing, I believe. Not when fixing it might introduce another bug or break someone's workflow. > >>>>> and only then > >>>>> update built-in packages. > >>>> > >>>> I asked what plausible scenario you think might be broken by having > >>>> package-update upgrade builtin package by default. > >>> > >>> That's obvious: this is how package-update behaved until now. > >> > >> That's not an answer to the question. > > > > It is for me (and I'm quite surprised that it is not for you). > > Not sure why you're surprised, you know my approach toward backward > compatibility. Never a fan of enshrining problems in amber. > > But in this case it's also a function that's never been in a released > Emacs, so the formal conditions are lacking as well. > > And it's okay to use the time since the code was added as a rough proxy > for stability, but when it's pretty clear (just from the comments in > this very thread) that most people never noticed or forgot that it's > there. So it's obviously not very well tested. What is obvious to you is not obvious to me. > Just from reading it code and testing, I see another bug: it removes the > updated package from package-selected-packages because it doesn't pass > NOSAVE to package-delete. Meaning, 'M-x package-autoremove' at any time > later will delete it. If there are bugs, we need to fix them. Philip, any comments regarding this particular issue with package-autoremove after package-update? > >> Alternatively, we could add an optional argument to package-install > >> which would mean "install the latest version anyway". > > > > There is already such an option, added as part of fixing this bug. > > Ok, since you insist. See attached. I don't understand how this patch is supposed to be any progress in this discussion. I see no prefix argument handling in package-update and no change in behavior when package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil. So why did you think this brings the code closer to what I suggested? Thanks.