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.bugs Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:37:40 +0000 Message-ID: <87r0sl2x6j.fsf@posteo.net> References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <83mt3d73c2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0sptinq.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyh706c.fsf@gnu.org> <875ya1tdwf.fsf@posteo.net> <83edop6sdy.fsf@gnu.org> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <87a5zblspg.fsf@posteo.net> <83ildz4vu7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3bk31e.fsf@posteo.net> <83r0smg2a6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm86pgda.fsf@posteo.net> <838retee1z.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg794ebz.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="26752"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 62720@debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 15 13:38:10 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 1pneEM-0006lH-5W for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:38:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pneEF-0006y0-L6; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:38:03 -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 1pneEE-0006xe-BV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:38:02 -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 1pneEE-0006ML-1d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:38:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pneED-00052F-Ts for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:38:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Philip Kaludercic Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:38:01 +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=B62720.168155866919338 (code B ref 62720); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:38:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2023 11:37:49 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48394 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pneE0-00051p-RJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:37:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:45647) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pneDz-00051d-8x for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:37:47 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95F024020E for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:37:41 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1681558661; bh=xyqLr3svqIn09RgScxG7l/ZAGdJ67EWkk5lHuMUnF9c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=ZG8Uirkho79WBkrivegFyVGlDJ2bZmDrAZH9RbsBpfk+KYsAD+rGEwrMNjjnwM6lR YGk4gL+4eis5JfnrVbNvxcfT9r5sqVvxp+MthyRhtSnU5GkcfIKea5cW+/A+fAq639 XLoDtldr336hO040C/IqRWSQ5HBt1AkYAaj0GFqlhbMajCy2hjOHDXZ+c5a8fF9Avo 5AujJjvmogJdbw6hb7heu0UMW7FyZhCoLwsUOy2ctFZkgYSisIcvmUtmVG2FSxXLTK kD2QzCn2GfvcfRFv97kAnhV2qjDBI0tM2TTcN1R0RgAvb6jrtHQjt6n37x+/qsvodI gSIOL/FFt5/Mg== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4PzBBX6qDnz9rxF; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:37:40 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83mt39ct2m.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:56:17 +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 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:260031 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 62720@debbugs.gnu.= org >> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:41:52 +0000 >>=20 >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >>=20 >> > What is your preference? change package-install or package-update? I >> > tend to the former. >>=20 >> I have no preference either way. If you think that package-install is >> fine, and Jo=C3=A3o has expressed interest in that route as well, we mig= ht as >> well go that way. > > OK, then let's do that, and thanks. Great, then just to that we are on the same page, what approach do we finally want to decide on? - User option to enable upgrading built-in packages - Prefix argument to enable upgrading built-in packages - Always upgrade built-in packages I argue the last option should be safe. Semantically it would also make sense, since invoking the command can be taken to be take to be an explicit request, and if it is not what a user wants (I assume that Jo=C3= =A3o think this is not probable), then it is easy to revert. If we decide that this is not acceptable, then we can fall back onto the patch that uses a prefix argument or a user option. --=20 Philip Kaludercic