From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-29 9b775ddc057 1/2: ; * etc/EGLOT-NEWS: Fix wording of last change. Date: Sat, 06 May 2023 19:40:25 +0300 Message-ID: <83edntfm6e.fsf@gnu.org> References: <168335548287.8529.4912240840977468283@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20230506064443.56C75C22F15@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <59835735-faa0-4096-e491-35ec92964b7a@gutov.dev> <831qjthhm8.fsf@gnu.org> <715cdac6-83f6-6907-2ff8-3b33381f3487@gutov.dev> <83zg6hg29c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttwpfvcr.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6spfose.fsf@gnu.org> <35df1362-fd92-9424-97d0-df3479414677@gutov.dev> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40243"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov , Philip Kaludercic , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 06 18:40:37 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1pvKxY-000AJb-2I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 18:40:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvKwX-0004fw-Hf; Sat, 06 May 2023 12:39:33 -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 1pvKwV-0004To-FB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 12:39:31 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvKwT-0004Li-MA; Sat, 06 May 2023 12:39:29 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=SJpP/oXCIuZFDXexDP42U8wogJsrtb4dx7XaFg+LkCs=; b=MKKJ+Mz/MH8L s1tYx4hibnsVNaR0W+n9KnV4Ly3SPKiGGGEcA2lc+VK6KaljEpo4OXr6NC0yV1RGip3mgqsewf11l CV5aat7OJX6Gv357L99clifdv9OnAhvgo2hBx8a0v2tp6pZn/uazf6yFmmWw1ZSrk7cA3NDzI/XhW dY9xgPja/S1jP57sZ5cQkq0zRLbAoLVayBtpdbf7qKNPZoGMCQprHKpat3kNH+fEScODLwGdfIIxh dDn1xw9WjEwdeide+HP/BBCzOb7qpb9XVn1836DZsS/u1iZkfTm2wduMunDUxYLc1MnGYi5HwjFje oNwMLB8w3fa9sk+FENRO1g==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvKwT-0005Sy-5m; Sat, 06 May 2023 12:39:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <35df1362-fd92-9424-97d0-df3479414677@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 6 May 2023 18:54:47 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:305918 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 18:54:47 +0300 > Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > >> If some version of it is installed from ELPA (!) already, 'M-x > >> package-install' won't upgrade. > > > > Then I don't understand why you decided to drop the similar change to > > package-upgrade. At the time I thought package-install can be used as > > an alternative, but if it cannot, I think we should add to > > package-upgrade the same optional behavior of upgrading a built-in > > package as we have in package-install. > > We now have a better solution on master: 'M-x package-upgrade' simply > upgrades the built-ins, no questions asked. What we have on master is not relevant to what we discuss here, which is Emacs 29. > If we added the behavior similar to the addition in package-install > (with prefix arguments and guarded by an option, possibly even a new > optional argument), we'd have to carry over that awkward convention to > Emacs 30 in some form. And as you recall, Joao wasn't happy with either > solution anyway (of those that you liked enough). The question is: is it reasonable not to allow package-upgrade in Emacs 29 to upgrade a built-in package? Not even as an option? > > What other methods currently exist to upgrade an already installed > > package (or a non-built-in package that is already installed)? I know > > about one -- via lisp-packages (a.k.a. package menu); are there > > others? > > Also: > M-x package-upgrade > M-x package-upgrade-all > > > Will any of these methods upgrade a built-in package, at least as an > > optional behavior? > > Not in Emacs 29. So I think we have a problem, and I think we need to solve it. Philip, Stefan: WDYT about this? What about installation from the list-packages menu: will it upgrade a built-in package if package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil? > > But if emptying ~/.emacs.d/elpa is not a frequent use case, why should > > we care about it so much? It sounds like bug#62720 and the entire > > long dispute that followed were focused on this strange use pattern, > > instead of talking about more reasonable upgrade scenarios? > > We focused on it because, apparently, using 'M-x package-install' worked > in more cases in Emacs 28 than in Emacs 29. And some think it's > important. And because 'package-upgrade' is not in Emacs 28 at all. If package-upgrade was not in Emacs 28, how did users upgrade installed packages in Emacs 28 and before? > Personally, I think it's better to focus on fixing 'package-upgrade' > (which I did). But I don't think it's constructive to hide that fix > behind a pref. I don't see a zero-sum game here. We could focus on both. But I don't use package.el and never will, so if those who use it and maintain it think otherwise, I won't insist. Although I find this stance very strange indeed, to say the least.