From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin?= Le Gouguec Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:19:29 +0200 Message-ID: <87o7nppf3y.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> <834jpifizy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1mue1qi.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfd2e01f.fsf@gnu.org> <835y9xecvp.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24325"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: philipk@posteo.net, rpluim@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, dmitry@gutov.dev, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=A1vora?= Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 15 13:20:26 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 1pndxB-00064j-Na for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:20:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pndwz-0003Yh-Gb; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:20:13 -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 1pndwu-0003Xr-BX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:20:08 -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 1pndwo-0002XE-Qk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:20:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndwo-00028g-7C for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:20:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?K=C3=A9vin?= Le Gouguec Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:20:02 +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=B62720.16815575798187 (code B ref 62720); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:20:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 11:19:39 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48377 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndwQ-00027w-Rg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:19:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com ([209.85.221.44]:47444) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pndwP-00027k-BZ for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:19:37 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-2efac435608so308214f8f.3 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:19:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681557571; x=1684149571; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=bIWcXbLWrKSpQPjg0rwuEVj3G6wYpvdJsrb/vKeoy50=; b=qhlWiM4zgfj5iNi0Z9+/KWn7Dok/K9GOEJjUkWM1NZP1f0y3XbFJxa2vk6nll7WfAk 7fCJP1+irOaZ1pYpo8Ip0dsJbLUnjA/WVgIWz4H6cd/LwIW/25UB5dw/Ng6cLMbcdOrh SDxSygYJljPilKSRfJCnObyFuJK9UVyJNIme+M+5taBVUGl5wLl56InQssoBlp/2KGvb j/8QAwFEYDghL5M+jvNXQlIaaUIWyGqbS9hrIt1D1l3jOMb5+kF4iYNhsl0PfyfvjbXd 94ragB60jeekCdevT6233mQQ/m3qQcVH7p7/bG3Ux4d9xdphIDSuDQvQ/A+rpNFQEktP K1Tw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681557571; x=1684149571; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bIWcXbLWrKSpQPjg0rwuEVj3G6wYpvdJsrb/vKeoy50=; b=I55yXVcMiRn0i7ck9hJB3ZWonwOcQ7ab6t+xPt+p7hbTis1t1e7kqlZEAhfmeSY+YT tdCkHgbSGqgWLloxXHXWW4q/4EpAB/SVn95vhu5DmaXZWyrVX2MX4X9e/39uUPZOSq8i b5nvyh835l0Xg0H14hfYEQIG/2VjTyoS3/M1jsVEzdTlBr+L+f3ecrb52uVtbs5uIaai /dmD52FZ+i9bozT5An8hFLwklaGFotyEgcEFVKzEdUifX8g6Is4a9Zd/G/7eq+NQSM4T S5BfYQ2EDURUHKH3JU5pNFSxVGlpOvPDL8xszjFQ7Nev/7V1W6pfRnjwLqXc3MlZ8Cas 1n+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ez2jng0L2IL1yjr41JrnIkfIsmCkC0x9y7RyfhWMzef9YSMiul PB3vAoAuUWYrHezPeEITQVs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YtGAIU+Tdk+rohv9avJ8JsmZjfY1MmZ6yAs/y3O+ohmd3dv+1IHjBNyDAMcHjNvsHmN5J2Ng== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6752:0:b0:2ef:ae66:c0e3 with SMTP id l18-20020a5d6752000000b002efae66c0e3mr1187609wrw.12.1681557571206; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from amdahl30 ([2a01:e0a:253:fe0:2ef0:5dff:fed2:7b49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bl18-20020adfe252000000b002d7a75a2c20sm5542529wrb.80.2023.04.15.04.19.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mt391lzq.fsf@gmail.com> ("=?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=A1vora?="'s message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:24:41 +0100") 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:260028 Archived-At: Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora writes: > A simple, readily verifiable fact remains. M-x package-install RET > eglot in Emacs 29 will bring you a older version than in Emacs 28. If > not today, tomorrow, eventually it will. And that's just bad in my > opinion. And it will become worse. > > If, in your opinion, this is somehow a good or indifferent thing, we can > stop the whole discussion right here. > > Again: if you think it's a _good thing_ that, in Emacs 29 > > (use-package eglot :ensure t)=20 > > or > > (package-install 'eglot) > > or=20 > > M-x package-install RET eglot > > produces an older version of Eglot than the very same form in Emacs 26, > 27 and 28, please do say so ASAP. > > I was under the impression that you didn't prefer that, but I'm not sure > anymore after reading your complex last paragraph. If I may throw in my =C2=A22: in Emacs =E2=89=A428, users never had a choic= e between a "installing the newest Eglot from GNU ELPA" and "requiring that Eglot be available, possibly not the latest & greatest". They could only request the former. It's anyone's guess which of those two things users who cargo-cult those configuration lines would prefer, now that the question is up in the air for Emacs 29. FWIW, I'd lean toward the latter: IMHO, package-install, resp. (use-package =E2=80=A6 :ensure t), merely suggest ensuring availabili= ty, not proactively ugprading to the latest (unlike say "package-update"). So I wouldn't be shocked for package-install to be a no-op for :core packages, the semantics being "make sure the package is present, favoring any built-in version which presumably underwent lots of validation & stability fixes on the release branch". With that perspective, I don't think the change in behaviour users will observe in Emacs 29 re. which version of Eglot they get with `M-x package-install eglot' is necessarily "worse": it depends on how much one values "a release branch's worth of stability fixes" vs "a development branch's worth of new features". ( Although I can understand that, in the _specific_ context of an LSP client that is in active development & "competing" with a MELPA-only alternative, it is a bit of a bummer that M-x package-install =F0=9D=92= =AB will yield something that users might consider "inferior" feature-wise when =F0=9D=92=AB=3Deglot. A bit of a bummer, but not a deal-breaker IMO; as = long as "M-x package-list U x" brings the latest & greatest, I still think package-install's behaviour change re. eglot in Emacs 29 is defensible. ) ( Sorry for butting in and adding more words to this lengthy discussion; just thought that hearing the perspective from one random user might help. I must also confess that I might not have read the whole thing as attentively as I perhaps should have; the parallel subthread between Eli & Philip re. changing package-install or package-update makes me unsure what "U x" will actually do with eglot in Emacs 29, so my previous parenthesized digression might be moot. )