bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

[Drew Adams]

The doc string of `list-packages', and `C-h m' in the list it provides,
don't really tell you what actions you can perform there.  There is not
much, if any, help for this buffer, that I can see.

So I look at its menu-bar `Package' menu.  OK, I can guess a bit what
some of the menu items do.  But perhaps the most important action (?),
"Install", isn't even described anywere, AFAICT.

I see that only as the text of a button in the *Help* buffer content
from describing a package (`RET', `package-menu-describe').  I find no
description of what that "Install" button does.

And in the packages list I find no key binding for installing the
package of the current line or the marked packages, when I look at the
*Help* of `C-h m' - nothing that talks about installing.

Well, I do see that there's `i' (`package-menu-mark-install ') to mark
a package for installation, and there's `x' (`package-menu-execute' to
install the packages marked for installation.  But does `x' install the
package on the current line if no lines are marked?  (That's the way
Dired actions work, at least.)

But suppose I want to just download a package - its source files, and I
don't want to "install" it (especially since I have no way of knowing
what "installing" actually will do).  How to do that - download the
marked packages?  How to find out how to do it?  This is I guess my main
question for this bug report.

Also, using `d' on a line for a package that's not installed doesn't
mark it at all.  Why is that correct - no visual feedback?  If the point
is to tell you that it can't be marked for deletion then why is there no
message saying that?  And shouldn't it be marked anyway, and then have
`x' tell you that it can't be deleted - e.g., because it's not
installed?  Wouldn't that tell you more than what `d' does now?

(emacs) `Package Menu' helps.  But the buffer itself (and its menu and
help commands) should provide better help.


In GNU Emacs 26.3 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32)
 of 2019-08-29
Repository revision: 96dd0196c28bc36779584e47fffcca433c9309cd
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 10.0.18362
Configured using:
 `configure --without-dbus --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
 --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''

bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

[Tomas Nordin]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> But suppose I want to just download a package - its source files, and I
> don't want to "install" it (especially since I have no way of knowing
> what "installing" actually will do).  How to do that - download the
> marked packages?  How to find out how to do it?  This is I guess my main
> question for this bug report.

Sounds interesting to me, a helper to download a source package included
in the package system. A convenience feature. Maybe to strip down this
report to a feature request to add just that? I can imagine it could
trigger an itch with somebody.

Otherwise I guess the help from the list-packages for now is the link to
the package homepage.

Best regards
--
Tomas

bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

[Drew Adams]

> > But suppose I want to just download a package - its source files, and
> > I don't want to "install" it (especially since I have no way of knowing
> > what "installing" actually will do).  How to do that - download the
> > marked packages?  How to find out how to do it?  This is I guess my
> > main question for this bug report.
> 
> Sounds interesting to me, a helper to download a source package
> included
> in the package system. A convenience feature. Maybe to strip down this
> report to a feature request to add just that? I can imagine it could
> trigger an itch with somebody.

I don't want to strip this bug report / enhancement request
to just a request for a command to download but not install
the source file(s) of a package.

It's true that that was what I was looking for initially.
But as I tried looking everywhere in the pkg-list display,
for help about that mode, I found that it seems to be missing
the boat in helping users more generally.

So from my point of view:

1. An important enhancement is to provide such a command.
2. Other, i.e., more help is needed.

> Otherwise I guess the help from the list-packages for now is the link
> to the package homepage.

That's not help about using the pkg-list mode itself.
That's info about a particular package.  And yes, details
about a package belong on the package homepage, even if a
short description of each package is needed in the list
display itself.

bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> I see that only as the text of a button in the *Help* buffer content
> from describing a package (`RET', `package-menu-describe').  I find no
> description of what that "Install" button does.

The "Install" button installs the package.  I don't think that concept
needs explication.

Most of the rest of the bug report is about whether the batch-oriented
command set of package.el is appropriate.  I think marking and then
`x'-executing packages is a pretty odd interface myself -- I don't think
the user commonly works in that batch-oriented way, so having this be a
two step process is pretty weird.

I'm not sure we can change what the `i' and `d' keys do at this point,
though, but perhaps we could introduce two new keystrokes?  Anybody got
an opinion here?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

[Y. E.]

> (emacs) `Package Menu' helps. But the buffer itself (and its menu and
> help commands) should provide better help.

So maybe link from the package-mode *Help* to (emacs) `Package Menu'?
(That's what I first thought Tomas meant.)

> Most of the rest of the bug report is about whether the batch-oriented
> command set of package.el is appropriate.  I think marking and then
> `x'-executing packages is a pretty odd interface myself -- I don't think
> the user commonly works in that batch-oriented way, so having this be a
> two step process is pretty weird.

For me, it felt weird only before reading *Help* of the package-mode.
After that, it felt quite in accordance with the rest of Emacs behavior.

[But that depends of course on whether a user has already met
the e*x*ecute behavior and without considering inconsistencies
in Emacs behavior when e*x*ecuting on not-marked lines.]

I think with new keystrokes there's a risk to confuse (especially a new user)
even more: for example, using I (uppercase-i) and D per one package
install/delete would make already inconsistent U even more inconsistent.

Maybe also change `package-menu-quick-help' output:
it could be improved by mentioning *marking*, not only the action.

bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

"Y. E." <yugenekr@gmail.com> writes:

> I think with new keystrokes there's a risk to confuse (especially a new user)
> even more: for example, using I (uppercase-i) and D per one package
> install/delete would make already inconsistent U even more inconsistent.

Yeah, probably.  On the other hand, even having `I' and `D' as separate
commands is unnecessary -- we could have an `X' command that does the
correct thing on the current line.  (Package knows whether that's
installing or deleting a package.)

> Maybe also change `package-menu-quick-help' output:
> it could be improved by mentioning *marking*, not only the action.

Indeed.  I've now pushed a change that spells out what i, d and x really
do, because it was pretty misleading.  I can well see people reading
that, hitting `i' and then going "so it's installed now?"

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

[Y. E.]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote:
> we could have an `X' command that does the
> correct thing on the current line.  (Package knows whether that's
> installing or deleting a package.)

Yes, `X' might work. What would it do with an installed upgradable
package?

> I've now pushed a change that spells out what i, d and x really
> do, because it was pretty misleading.

Looks good to me, thanks.

bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

"Y. E." <yugenekr@gmail.com> writes:

> Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote:
>> we could have an `X' command that does the
>> correct thing on the current line.  (Package knows whether that's
>> installing or deleting a package.)
>
> Yes, `X' might work. What would it do with an installed upgradable
> package?

A thought just occurred to me -- why not make this a bit more like
vc-dir (and other modes)?  That is, if there's nothing marked, then `x'
should just work on the package under point.  So a bit like `v' in
vc-dir -- install it if it isn't installed, and delete it if it is
already installed.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> A thought just occurred to me -- why not make this a bit more like
> vc-dir (and other modes)?  That is, if there's nothing marked, then `x'
> should just work on the package under point.  So a bit like `v' in
> vc-dir -- install it if it isn't installed, and delete it if it is
> already installed.

So I've now done this in Emacs 29.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#40457: 26.3; A little Help from `list-packages'?

[Drew Adams]

> > A thought just occurred to me -- why not make this a bit more like
> > vc-dir (and other modes)?  That is, if there's nothing marked, then
> > `x' should just work on the package under point.  So a bit like `v'
> > in vc-dir -- install it if it isn't installed, and delete it if it
> > is already installed.
>
> So I've now done this in Emacs 29.

And that's not what the bug report is about,
which is:

  "help about using the pkg-list mode itself"

Another "wont-fix".  Another doing something
different and calling it a fix for a bug,
unrelated no less.