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?Jo=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=A1vora?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:56:05 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <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> 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="32853"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii , Philip Kaludercic , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Robert Pluim Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 14 14:57:20 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 1pnIzQ-0008NF-9T for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:57:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnIzC-0008U1-J8; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:57:06 -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 1pnIz9-0008Ta-Ba for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:57:03 -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 1pnIz9-00060X-3q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:57:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnIz8-00086w-LZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:57:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=A1vora?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:57:02 +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=B62720.168147698531121 (code B ref 62720); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:57:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 12:56:25 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45810 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnIyW-00085t-Hf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:56:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-oi1-f171.google.com ([209.85.167.171]:41868) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnIyT-00085d-T5 for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:56:22 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-oi1-f171.google.com with SMTP id ec6so5230034oib.8 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 05:56:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681476976; x=1684068976; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=crUrfkyM+hLoYDwW68yZ0sUp9nlXVgnn2VTEFPjd5S0=; b=g+kOiKlIMw/sS6ujtw4MjNWSRH+MbkTve9hQo3+viEf9IiBs8N8vBAbVXkHEK5tqG5 4+3IqmBAONWqk8BObWw8ssDY+MdNfn4Aoe7+ld6+whnmyO91QvXN6f2OjatPAeytT+Ys jhFZEiTgai9W7A+qTXOm/G5DQPMys8vPnHsnf/d/Z8mStxxSdHKxGsaV3pD0YEJZW+oL Dl275gDMxLo7uYxWJt/ME2fEoCGLwwPTwpOopL2mXnVG1i/ZhkfAHwTNJXMX6aaDSdHu cSTMSZlIA1W1CCT+3heQQX/I4AduOqCvA8+z+LxRqO8y1+DHVlLhkO5zLV7Ih6XPx6Tv aZ/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681476976; x=1684068976; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=crUrfkyM+hLoYDwW68yZ0sUp9nlXVgnn2VTEFPjd5S0=; b=hmZ2eS9/7Bqjyob3rQDEjhtG9ivXc4MuFkAgnOotVtYLuVk8uJlvH2n56lEc9YhUQZ ehVMn4Ewh4eh3v+hzJZKI2tsEejlTw1cy/8yVCFwprLc1OVXAOgDYzgFo/bd73NhNuw9 M9fi+XKsbumPhQqpg1Vbzg5p6K+Y9AUxJ552NDhvzVd0SeA8zrR8m+zxmAX64cbWQPY0 ZC1LsATav4mBXc8OQEQKZdJd+Rs9TdivlH8uhB9hyVpKH8R1ZE4Z1G1TjslYohXkerGQ KojKpbxh1nKt9slF17ypL35ZTAMwRhUF4VF8D38WE8Wk5iyf8ivv5ylYLS51ebZlBMUI 0RuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9d3faV/z8p8iAFLhuzWbz4nKxfKOmnTss9G+Iw5ICr6z/V9UQLo zmu0ufvSUu1cm31tN/++dWgX51gCcyzcFZpwIdE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZogHkLFNHLDL9VFHLHICTM0Q3fjI+wbcILFH6M90lT96+eWrmjC7D6hSPY/lIu3OCxKNvuGbviUhvMfNzZuHI= X-Received: by 2002:aca:111a:0:b0:386:e7e7:d93d with SMTP id 26-20020aca111a000000b00386e7e7d93dmr1276284oir.5.1681476975913; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> 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:259911 Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 1:34=E2=80=AFPM Robert Pluim wro= te: > So on master if I upgrade all packages, ':core' packages would be > automatically upgraded as well? By definition, all :core packages in master are already at their newest version. > I strongly object to that as a > default; just because there=CA=BCs a newer version on elpa of a :core I really planned to sit this one out, but I'd like to make sure people understand the implications of what they're asking for. On Emacs 26, 27, 28 if the user has (package-install 'some-package-now-in-core) in her configuration, it gets upgraded to the most recent version there is. In subsequent forms, the config can start doing stuff with the variables and definitions in 'some-package-now-in-core', etc. And the user can enjoy the newest features and bugfixes. On Emacs 29 and later, the very same config will do nothing and even probably/possibly break with an error. Furthermore, the subtle problem will grow more serious and bizarre as time goes on and "some-package-now-in-core" evolves. It might not break for users who upgrade to 29 next month and break for users who upgrade to 29 in 6 months' time, because "some-package-now-in-core" will have evolved significantly. > package doesn=CA=BCt mean emacs should upgrade to it unless *explicitly* > told to do so. I really don't understand why M-x package-install RET RET isn't explicit enough. But I guess a a confirmation prompt could be logical. I haven't followed all mails, maybe someone has proposed that? As for non-interactive package-install, I guess that finding an explicit `package-install` somewhere in the configuration is reason enough to assume that the user meant for it to have the meaning and effect it has always had before she upgraded to a version where the same package happens to be in :core, and that meaning is "upgrade to the newest". Jo=C3=A3o