Re: emacs-29 9b775ddc057 1/2: ; * etc/EGLOT-NEWS: Fix wording of last change.

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1706 bytes --]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Cc: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>,  monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,
>>   emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sun, 07 May 2023 08:46:53 +0000
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > I think it better did, because using "U" would upgrade Eglot and
>> > use-package in Emacs 28 and before.  So we should give users who want
>> > that the capability of keeping that workflow in Emacs 29, if only as
>> > opt-in behavior.
>> 
>> "Workflow" is really to high of a term for the problem being discussed
>> here.  Installing packages is not a periodical thing people to on a
>> regular basis.
>
> Since we are talking about an optional feature, it will suit this
> well, I think.  The target audience for this are those users who were
> used to upgrade Eglot regularly when it was not a core package.
> Likewise for other packages that would be brought into core in the
> future.
>
>> > Also, "/ u" should ideally show built-in packages as well, when
>> > package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil.
>> 
>> So the point here would be that a user who enables this option, regards
>> any newer version of a core-package on ELPA as something that should be
>> installed?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Perhaps this is a tangent, but what would happen if a third-party
>> repository like MELPA adds a package with the same name as a core
>> package?
>
> This problem exists today already, with non-core packages.  Right?
>
>> > Philip, can these two changes be implemented safely for Emacs 29?
>> 
>> It certainly can be done.
>
> I'd appreciate if you could show a patch that we could then consider.
> TIA.

This is an initial, quick sketch:


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 1498 bytes --]

diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el
index 2892728ebd9..4c85db1aedb 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el
@@ -3740,7 +3740,9 @@ package-menu--find-upgrades
       ;; ENTRY is (PKG-DESC [NAME VERSION STATUS DOC])
       (let ((pkg-desc (car entry))
             (status (aref (cadr entry) 2)))
-        (cond ((member status '("installed" "dependency" "unsigned" "external"))
+        (cond ((member status (append
+                               '("installed" "dependency" "unsigned" "external")
+                               (and package-install-upgrade-built-in '("built-in"))))
                (push pkg-desc installed))
               ((member status '("available" "new"))
                (setq available (package--append-to-alist pkg-desc available))))))
@@ -3749,8 +3751,10 @@ package-menu--find-upgrades
       (let* ((name (package-desc-name pkg-desc))
              (avail-pkg (cadr (assq name available))))
         (and avail-pkg
-             (version-list-< (package-desc-priority-version pkg-desc)
-                             (package-desc-priority-version avail-pkg))
+             (or (version-list-< (package-desc-priority-version pkg-desc)
+                                 (package-desc-priority-version avail-pkg))
+                 (and package-install-upgrade-built-in
+                      (package--active-built-in-p pkg-desc)))
              (push (cons name avail-pkg) upgrades))))
     upgrades))
 

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 105 bytes --]


but on my system, it immediately suggests upgrading 24 packages, which
is a lot.

-- 
Philip Kaludercic