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.devel Subject: Re: emacs-29 9b775ddc057 1/2: ; * etc/EGLOT-NEWS: Fix wording of last change. Date: Sat, 06 May 2023 18:44:35 +0000 Message-ID: <871qjti9kc.fsf@posteo.net> 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> <83edntfm6e.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="26228"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 06 20:45:36 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 1pvMuW-0006c6-7J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 20:45:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvMtf-0004h3-8B; Sat, 06 May 2023 14:44:43 -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 1pvMtd-0004gq-NJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 14:44:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvMtb-0002b3-HB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 14:44:41 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 918BE240103 for ; Sat, 6 May 2023 20:44:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1683398676; bh=fqhlfjAMQWEW+ooXv7EppJAHV+2Oxe3xkBDF2BCj1R0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=dMfNY/q1PEepPrB9am6SNr9OUAw7/e9biqdc0BEPsnoYqB5fCARx3gPpslKq4yZHB S8M39lZK+lGDI7CbiNpXk5bcK4EVBCMaKlI03qJ46ZeT+aNoywL0X15l1SLMLN3Mas ACvzLunvu+xYKCDzf5jRHgKM9v8QpZwhmSJ9YVhmHncPF3FSBckTnv1X9WkXFflAvG oUA+qEtgqaBwJ3AZds9AzLxxsd/eMyCgZicVbmrUhkbey9NonMUugCh1jsNS69tAMQ mGSuxdyGoQy9GtJvXoOQHbbf3XAAR4t7DAUSZkUgW+zfvjsXDLSJLS7j91Wj9ASKoh 3P2mVWCJ4cGXg== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4QDGgR4lx7z6tx8; Sat, 6 May 2023 20:44:35 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83edntfm6e.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 06 May 2023 19:40:25 +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 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:305923 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> 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? I think that would be fine. The code looks fine, and considering the commotion about this functionality and the effort that has been put into preparing a minimal functional change, I think that it would be warranted to allow for this change to be applies to emacs-29. >> > 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? Yes it will, which is why I find this discussion silly and have not been following it in detail (also other non-emacs responsibilities have been intervening). >> > 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? They invoked M-x list-packages, waited for the upgrade to appear, selected them with U and then executed the update with x. This is what used to work, and what will continue to work. There was some mention about problems with M-x list-packages, but I haven't heard of any specific issues that could be addressed (I personally suspect it might be an issue related to the tracking of the master or close-to-master branches). >> 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. (This explains some of the confusion, I was under the assumption that some of your questions were from a position of Socratic ignorance, but if you don't use it at all, then some of the past confusion makes more sense to me.)