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 16:34:47 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <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> <87y1muefks.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="34790"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Philip Kaludercic , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, 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 17:36:23 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 1pnLTL-0008uT-1R for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:36:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLT2-0003iG-Uc; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:36:04 -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 1pnLT0-0003i5-Ks for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:36:02 -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 1pnLT0-0000h7-62 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:36:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLSz-0007FE-Kp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:36:01 -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 15:36:01 +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=B62720.168148650727769 (code B ref 62720); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:36:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 15:35:07 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47333 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLS6-0007Dp-KV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:35:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ot1-f44.google.com ([209.85.210.44]:45659) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLS4-0007DG-9Y for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:35:05 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ot1-f44.google.com with SMTP id cg19-20020a056830631300b0069f922cd5ceso8883211otb.12 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:35:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681486498; x=1684078498; 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=PS9BlvdsvJDY9yqRba1zEg+sh6tA8Rs0C8uGxmm1snI=; b=ZRj23AikNbE+vYRIPC6oeA3rx4Q/enLPdQNpF+3Z2B1pQ3PeqrD3nEQFK9NL8iNtyt Fcs/Yq/cVLF9aM4iz6mNTnL7jGlaP7RzMguqTiTKURahTQbK+kSpQQ0mKy9vZk/xaS1j V07HNKll0Aq4SskBW2vERf0gpcKvPm8SGdtwnx+O4+IH2wsA91Y4ocxM1N1+WOT+Rahb BIIYM003allD4erX2ljDpeTdwufLhFQWMXl3Re0ylqYM6+xbpdp8IutDLbn0U8tbWcLM a9JY9IDkjP1zMfpouTTFZe6PYA4eUe2yCG4tkKks9fnZ5BX/dFBy92n9AVJrzrw4KWy9 n1ag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681486498; x=1684078498; 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=PS9BlvdsvJDY9yqRba1zEg+sh6tA8Rs0C8uGxmm1snI=; b=Eic+iGVqe5HwBBv6ZCIHaeW3XuvNuCcXUMk3fdQKIcxO9kHmD2lJ8scTARVxpiklH9 E+zwN5rxkQSelnTYRoxo8/XA+zM+EikRYHJCwD1rFXsLJrKLGUxIHoudYRN0GFVQoO1S pIKNUzSZKtjYqb5wV4YmdaZTH1X6yWhqFronqPJU7ExN2yJurwC1JHPUpC8g8JtuvPVD ZJoi5yyf4JOu84SY7QbCzpGsf+k1jG2XXC1YDl0hqRrSRN6qzIqRU2SQIkZdUdlCLZaC hScl4kVFkkHWR0e3rvTAbsmAxheCZ+deMF0PY9mpFUA4TuhTG3Sw/s0Ei/dYH4qXcF8x m65w== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fDgabgW4QRi5kNRo8Vy9dgCJAKHmbFKrLZH1nw+furxApCf18b xn3c3vaU3xsQhIOL6lAjLI6+ftCsJN/9JZKb1GZBTaDgMas= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YzQ/OgpxDquBX+G0rEAOz1aFVoolxlYiRi2HsJtQK0A/sw6ehkyt50NAIHzW28dYdeRBdrJPSeKSWXH1LMmKE= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:65d7:0:b0:6a3:934f:b741 with SMTP id z23-20020a9d65d7000000b006a3934fb741mr1814728oth.4.1681486498349; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:34:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87y1muefks.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:259930 Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 2:52=E2=80=AFPM Robert Pluim wro= te: > I have no objection to catering to people who have already asked for > the installation of a package that is now :core. But one that wasn=CA=BCt > installed explicitly (ie it=CA=BCs only there because Emacs now ships it) > shouldn=CA=BCt be upgraded. I think I don't fully understand. Maybe you can answer this: if a user is setting up Emacs 28 in company laptop machines regularly and does M-x package-install RET eglot RET there, or has a script with (package-install 'eglot), should or shouldn't this user, in your opinion, be allowed to do exactly the same, with the same predictable results (in this case getting the latest Eglot), when she start= s doing the same in Emacs 29, which now contains Eglot as a built-in? What about other builtin packages that, contrary to Eglot, already existed in Emacs 28? If your answer is different now, maybe we should record that difference somewhere, so we know what packages came from ELPA into :core and when, and can decide accordingly. Who knows maybe just whitelisting Eglot and any other packages that weren't built-in in 28 and are now built-in Emacs 29 is the answer to all this. Jo=C3=A3o