From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Forcing reinstall in package.el Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:18:56 -0600 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87d3nssl3j.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87sjy03uyw.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87y67rytjc.fsf@lifelogs.com> <877hfau2g3.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295468416 30140 80.91.229.12 (19 Jan 2011 20:20:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 19 21:20:12 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PfeVo-0004EK-A9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:20:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47393 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PfeVn-00055t-LP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:20:11 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46135 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PfeVj-00055n-7p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:20:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PfeVi-0006VE-2a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:20:07 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:58910) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PfeVh-0006V3-Mo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PfeVg-0004AV-GE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:20:04 +0100 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:20:04 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:20:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q1Nk7RIgH92mlQM6VVaqjcHahKM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:134775 Archived-At: On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 12:08:26 -0800 Phil Hagelberg wrote: PH> 2010/12/15 Ted Zlatanov : >> I thought Phil was talking about an upgrade situation (version is same >> or newer), not an unconditional overwrite even if the version is older. >> Sorry if I misunderstood. >> >> I don't think it's an error to install the same version. You could have >> modified your local version accidentally, for instance. In that case it >> should maybe warn you, but it's still a good thing to be able to overwrite. PH> Reinstalling the same version is very common for package developers. PH> I'm only talking about overwriting files. Since different versions PH> live in different paths, if you choose to install an older/newer PH> version that hasn't been installed yet, you won't get an overwrite PH> warning either way, so that question is really orthogonal. PH> The only question about my proposed change is whether overwriting PH> already-installed packages should happen automatically or require a PH> prompt/prefix. I suppose it would be possible to have local changes to PH> your packages that you want to avoid blowing away, so requiring a PH> prompt is slightly safer. I will work on a patch that does this unless PH> there are further objections. Thanks. I look forward to testing it :) Ted