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.bugs Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:58:58 +0300 Message-ID: <83cz3txzi5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <556e0fbb-215e-c11d-0e8b-73e97441abbb@gutov.dev> <83pm7y6fdo.fsf@gnu.org> <47140c27-ba63-ca7b-8b9e-cc38a6f9a866@gutov.dev> <838rem636a.fsf@gnu.org> <83leil4u63.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9d0e2b-6ae2-bcdc-efd0-52a44ac862bb@gutov.dev> <83h6t94hru.fsf@gnu.org> <7676c8d2-1324-31e7-38b3-de167ecf683a@gutov.dev> <8e9bd99a-3093-3b69-8429-aa1ae6b7240d@gutov.dev> <834jp82u5c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ildo189j.fsf@gnu.org> <6e91a10e-e8bb-c7db-f6ce-917790e7e391@gutov.dev> <83edoc1602.fsf@gnu.org> <8e4ec101-adc3-0d1b-af3d-cce92f17b874@gutov.dev> <83r0sbyuew.fsf@gnu.org> <83edoazr8k.fsf@gnu.org> <3fb17c71-2a37-b306-472b-d8bc845e5777@gutov.dev> <83a5yyznfe.fsf@gnu.org> <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25373"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, larsi@gnus.org, joaotavora@gmail.com To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 24 13:59:18 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 1pquqk-0006OW-LB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:59:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pquqV-0001nU-Rv; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:59:03 -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 1pquqU-0001nK-Ka for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:59:02 -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 1pquqU-0005H6-D6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:59:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pquqU-00013G-95 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:59:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 11:59:02 +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=B62720.16823375234015 (code B ref 62720); Mon, 24 Apr 2023 11:59:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2023 11:58:43 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47728 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pquqB-00012h-8d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:58:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47138) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pquq8-00012U-GD for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:58:41 -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 1pquq3-0005CM-1p; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:58:35 -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=MSqnEWQPeDf5U/ZQoHWGrAko38N7n++NAkK7fYJd4bk=; b=GTFIlp/S4EFB NPRv3N677JBrfibfN0XPsknFIGtFdmvvoCPOeic/F6d+WZknEIQU3tirEbA8CsdxpvOo+KOGubVta cWpluwqtgs6StAflTMcNL+WAo5zDpQUe0P+jBez5BfZuLqOmDxI05RekH9QoYTaVS/IDCsU1QXQOW vuR/jygGaTWHq7NtJQaqrAZefWKcIEOGXFxE5FB/rR5XW5KUaSfT1PRgZJLSC8to1UU2pzq9tIPxW 9qfEU8vr1bQp1f2jSVt7JK3qoUbzYXg/trz1roX88qHsUph0dnm3dEa2S2xB4/X0Ilb6wDAa4tekv WE16IpGpSm6cmR7hTa+tEg==; 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 1pquq2-0004TC-BR; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 07:58:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <41a79777-2cc6-9562-8915-9f28070b7bc9@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:53:30 +0300) 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:260566 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:53:30 +0300 > Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 23/04/2023 17:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:11:44 +0300 > >> Cc: jporterbugs@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, > >> joaotavora@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > >> From: Dmitry Gutov > >> > >>>> It addressed two last points from your previous email, obviously. > >>> Which points are those? Please help me identify them. > >> > >> These two: > >> > >> > There is already such an option, added as part of fixing this bug. > >> > >> The binding was added, so now we straight away delegate to package-install. > > > > I meant to give the user the control on whether package-update will > > update built-in packages, like we did with package-install: either via > > prefix argument or by customizing the user option. > > That would be a different change, though. > > So what are we guarding against here? That the user will choose a > built-in package to upgrade by accident? Yes. Also, against invocations of this command from other commands and from the menu. > And we'll show her an error, saying "use the prefix argument"? No, I think we'll do whatever the code does today when passed a built-in package.