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#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 05:41:17 +0000 Message-ID: <87zg6jbaiq.fsf@posteo.net> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> <5ae14089-f76f-84a1-d39a-3ec9e473a0aa@gutov.dev> <83jzy0wggy.fsf@gnu.org> <60a19aa0-e87c-1702-4ef4-df4450ed8fc7@gutov.dev> <831qk8w2rx.fsf@gnu.org> <0295d425-7c42-9a09-bda0-d3e4c92b4ff4@gutov.dev> <56893beb-90a2-7936-1c67-62ce3bae3f5d@gutov.dev> <837ctxubk4.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttx1siyv.fsf@gnu.org> <73003a28-a855-8941-58bf-8f56f5fdb8b8@gutov.dev> <83a5ysshvr.fsf@gnu.org> <170cd4ee-f967-f6e2-b7f8-a22c5076806c@gutov.dev> <83r0rvjrmw.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="12711"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov , joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri May 05 07:42:29 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 1puoD6-00037O-HR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 07:42:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1puoCn-0002Q7-Gq; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:42:09 -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 1puoCg-0002Pm-GZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:42:04 -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 1puoCf-0004VF-PK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:42:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puoCf-0003b2-Kp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:42:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Philip Kaludercic Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 05:42:01 +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=B62720.168326528913777 (code B ref 62720); Fri, 05 May 2023 05:42:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 May 2023 05:41:29 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52897 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puoC8-0003a9-O4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:41:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:60459) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1puoC5-0003Zs-Cb for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:41:27 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 610E1240B6D for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 5 May 2023 07:41:19 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1683265279; bh=U4UtGoEASMoyig17bJ42RzTi23kEt22qRHX7imOcbHc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=iZ6BfPFijLaqhjwGaONzmNE2WUdXaYalXffDNoZAzcq47QE24XGQByUUsaOlXpF5w m+aFIDlatbtkShRbFjbj3okKZMCQNFAeiPBwB11weIxjfg9IZ7jHzNzzLmnZ3aEF/+ 3XG4hQqttgSx/4WlQt+Dq/YdMo93v4n/6cBOFQ8nk1WLWENFdXeg7kkRjMiWaPkd9X kzKZT2++l3M4VHlnbHk0mPibIkMT9aboASW1hZhmPYLJZID4T8azUsy6HXrE/bxgze movBKGrhmQLcJLDeyVuekqHz9sa2hHDRkz8/3GAfxCvDRZq5NaCyiB8cfrTlwz0Iw3 N7aq6PymmmYnw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4QCKL56sb9z6txT; Fri, 5 May 2023 07:41:17 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83r0rvjrmw.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 05 May 2023 08:04:23 +0300") Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM 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:261054 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 02:58:25 +0300 >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> >> Let's get back to the previous topic. What about the previous fix for >> package-upgrade that I posted, one that makes it unconditionally upgrade >> built-in packages when invoked? >> >> The one attached here: https://debbugs.gnu.org/62720#718 >> >> Can we put it on master now, or do we have to wait for some feedback >> from Emacs 29 first? > > I'd prefer the latter. I'd prefer even more to have same behavior in > Emacs 20 and Emacs 30, which could be possible if we decide to make > this change in Emacs 29.2, based on feedback. Because is it really a > good idea to have the master and the release branch behave so > differently in this regard? People who use both branches, or switch > from one to the other, will become confused. > > Philip, Stefan: WDYT about this? I am fine with any change, as long as package-upgrade-all does not automatically switch from built-in packages to a different version from ELPA.