From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#71356: use-package doesn't load org from elpa Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:02:08 +0000 Message-ID: <87msnt1gkf.fsf@posteo.net> References: <86plsvk57o.fsf@gnu.org> <86ed9aip6z.fsf@gnu.org> <87ed9abnqn.fsf@posteo.net> <868qziifzd.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6665"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 71356@debbugs.gnu.org, acorallo@gnu.org, paaguti@gmail.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 10 08:11:12 2024 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 1sGYFL-0001Ux-Rd for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:11:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sGYEw-0005Vo-U6; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:10:46 -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 1sGYEv-0005Tg-8Z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:10:45 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sGYEv-00023s-0B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:10:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sGYFB-0002Ks-O6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:11:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Philip Kaludercic Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:11:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 71356 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 71356-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B71356.17179998328904 (code B ref 71356); Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:11:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 71356) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jun 2024 06:10:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36495 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sGYEh-0002JW-G4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:10:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:49257) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sGY6z-0001y8-GG for 71356@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:02:34 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 786A0240028 for <71356@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:02:10 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1717999330; bh=oucLJs4kNai774vwUvku2ZSuO+tpOvRsr5ct6I+JVuc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:OpenPGP:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type:From; b=KsyfgKmj4YTtP3EgBqeBjZR8KRCuwNrIPA6ESagzMPyl8XP+MGslCfbOOzY8ig4oq kdhSPFUfpV8ItffFi+U8KyjCyidsvDydKSEFX6Rr3+70dDQ9Lv4DtEap9wUiZGgDAd T3tK7s1tUriLdm+FtTWYq0ulOFEkVgqaVNZS0GAjtCtJKO4tQDL1fssEWP8FNhLlpo 54foJ7kRen+9VWdvTDZfD2OzBpOc1ibAzOUSx9yn9p9nRuWcAppYP/2nSV0N5q5kcX 9sMjQkIDOgSaxiE5Grp9uUx9MbWqsnJ6gucqgljuBIjE7NOzxXJzLto/6Ycvq9FoS5 lWjMY7e4zsa+A== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4VyLmd3pypz6tvl; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:02:09 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <868qziifzd.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 06 Jun 2024 12:21:26 +0300") OpenPGP: id=7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66; url="https://keys.openpgp.org/vks/v1/by-fingerprint/7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66"; preference=signencrypt 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:287011 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez , acorallo@gnu.org, >> 71356@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 06:15:44 +0000 >> >> Sorry for the delayed response; I don't think that has to be expected. >> While use-package can utilise package.el for package management, my >> impression is that it is at liberty to be more flexible/declarative. > > Doesn't use-package utilize package.el already? > > If not, how does it handle installation and upgrades? by its own code? By default it uses package.el, but there is an option to change it. >> > Do you have package-install-upgrade-built-in set non-nil? If not, can >> > you set it non-nil and try the recipe again? >> >> I have tried it out myself, and it doesn't appear to do anything. The >> issue looks like that `package-installed-p' doesn't respect >> package-install-upgrade-built-in or :pin. > > We should fix that, I think. If package-install-upgrade-built-in is > non-nil, use-package should upgrade built-in packages. > >> > As for a feature request: what exactly is the feature requested here? >> > Are you saying that use-package should automatically upgrade built-in >> > packages? If so, I don't think this will fly, since it would mean >> > inconsistencies with package-install. >> >> IIUC the feature would be that if a use-package form has a >> >> :pin gnu >> >> argument, then this is an indication that we want to install the package >> from GNU ELPA, disregarding the fact that Emacs already has a built-in >> version of the same package. Sort of a package-local version of >> `package-install-upgrade-built-in'. > > I'm not sure. People tend to copy/paste recipes from the Internet > without really understanding what they do. I think a simple :pin > should not be sufficient, we need some specialized keyword (in > addition to supporting package-install-upgrade-built-in). To me :pin would make perfect sense, as it explicitly expresses what archive we want to follow for package upgrades. >> I am not familiar with the use-package code, but it seems like we could >> implement this generally in package-install, by checking >> `package-pinned-packages'. > > I would prefer not to introduce another indication of whether built-in > packages should or should not be upgraded. If we do, we will next > need to decide which one "wins" when they contradict each other. One idea would be that use-package would check :pin and then conditionally bind `package-install-upgrade-built-in' when invoking `package-install'. That being said, I am not a fan of the user option any way, and wouldn't mind if we came up with a cleaner solution. -- Philip Kaludercic on peregrine