Daniel Mendler writes: > Philip Kaludercic writes: > >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >>>> Cc: 74556@debbugs.gnu.org >>>> From: Philip Kaludercic >>>> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 11:34:51 +0000 >>>> >>>> Philip Kaludercic writes: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> > It might make sense to try and "deactivate" a package before installing >>>> > the new package. Looking into some second-try fallback for >>>> > package-install to refresh the package index if a package was not found >>>> > would also be a good idea ^^ >>>> >>>> This might do it? >>> >>> Philip, please install this on the emacs-30 branch, unless you see any >>> problems with the change. We'd like to make another pretest soon. >> >> Done. But we should keep the report open as there might be better >> approaches to discuss in the future. > > Hello Philip, > > I just tried the modified `package-upgrade' function and it doesn't seem > to work. It seems to break the upgrade procedure in an even worse way, > at least in my setup. Now `package-install' is tried first with the > package symbol, which will be a no-op, since the package is already > installed. Afterwards the package is deleted and we always end up with > no package. Probably `package-install' should also be called with a > package descriptor of the new package version? Right, my sincere apologies for that oversight. That being said, I don't feel comfortable fixing this right now as I am short on time to fix and test something like this on the "emacs-30" branch. My vote would be to revert the commit and try to tackle the issue on the "master" branch. An alternative I can propose that would be closer to the original code might be