From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alex Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#14967: 24.3.50; package-delete deletes by trashing? Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:45:59 -0600 Message-ID: <87r2yp2dmw.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87k2et39vp.fsf@gmail.com> <87efuqulfb.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87o9tt51k3.fsf@gmail.com> <83bmpt5li4.fsf@gnu.org> <83y3sx414w.fsf@gnu.org> <83shj53zo1.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1497296835 25043 195.159.176.226 (12 Jun 2017 19:47:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:47:15 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: lunaryorn@gmail.com, 14967@debbugs.gnu.org, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 12 21:47:08 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dKVIp-00069j-KZ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 21:47:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39794 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dKVIu-00019O-GB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:47:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56259) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dKVIo-000198-Vp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:47:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dKVIk-0001fX-0b for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:47:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:41356) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dKVIj-0001fR-T6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:47:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dKVIj-0007yJ-NP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:47:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Alex Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:47:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 14967 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug Original-Received: via spool by 14967-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B14967.149729677030573 (code B ref 14967); Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:47:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 14967) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jun 2017 19:46:10 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44033 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dKVHu-0007x3-91 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:46:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-it0-f66.google.com ([209.85.214.66]:36349) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dKVHs-0007wr-Pz for 14967@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:46:09 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-it0-f66.google.com with SMTP id 185so9484042itv.3 for <14967@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:46:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=8CJ1UyNHFhfQIdRujOTctDPHwhm3o5fKE0vp1GJP/Qs=; b=Xc2j9U22hcgN9+KZ/0YUXKlNmLRlzVJFL9ISBHLBcGzxR6sF9BvqQ4hVbdxhaS0m/F 2xJAa7U2ZuXDmWzdoKw4474OYj/kueUyQ+e9JxFsGkGHEdRhdCkWR4iMBWJh1dRjDkte gHR1s+q0vsxmxfolAv1K/xzUdCmtcs2mYBpuRGrDSaFqsHhZ1B2+0HZdcSymj7Iij9Tr s7VDzliA/x2OTcN29h4KPI7KcDF/kjw+S5wvLdOhe3xsMBDGiPzNNdTyrdYrwRsFZxmm UuIrdWcvSt/bwdslTzgij7kBfSGeFPmx754dqvYwiHuB0RoXIjln/7tgLUJcajQvgzED ZU1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=8CJ1UyNHFhfQIdRujOTctDPHwhm3o5fKE0vp1GJP/Qs=; b=XE3Py08teOsiiR17+K7I5r5b5MiEhEGqXWlt8XTJkLH4XbqfRcpq34E2VCp+2gzNbr fnhFVFMbGTU8i/pGBKwc5eCvnSOfBLfEuE3VfjEDZunD7kqP6Q1wk2tXNVPgdpUkAPTb n2Wz/ZrKCANVvw98Q6FBvBdbxuSIXeArib07YhAUoRvzxuFY9P/bZbCv1FzuIdbjm0S8 OtRPF09+hn9istkYK5VrAvKYiXXkrfw6hmIFvK9xPFEP4Zxvu2EgKx5EVxkGO0Eh5CA9 F+r/72+LnAfK0BaE6EmcQxKPMV7sqdimX3dxntvlu7cmeK+nFRN+AKupxYIRLaK413Vm i81w== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAaHycQKLAF5aocObXnVgFEFNLvrV1o8lK6CQqfyj4anRjxE+k0 Dk4tl03vwirrEg== X-Received: by 10.36.110.23 with SMTP id w23mr13105637itc.24.1497296763140; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from lylat (S010664777d9cebe3.ss.shawcable.net. [70.64.85.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y188sm4594975ity.9.2017.06.12.12.46.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:17:55 -0400") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:133533 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> No. But the people who do and commented in this report don't want it to >>> apply to packages. So I think it's worth thinking, before adding a new >>> option, if anyone actually wants the current behaviour. >> Fine with me. All I said was that if we do add a variable, it should >> be a defcustom; defvar makes little sense to me. > > Maybe the most effective way to "ask" users is to just change the code > so it doesn't use the trash system (mentioning it in NEWS, of course). > And then wait to see if someone complains. > > > Stefan Is that a good idea for new behaviour that results in potential data loss (from the view of a user that expects `package-delete' to trash files rather than outright deleting them)? It might be easy to gloss over an entry in NEWS, after all. I don't like the default behaviour myself, so I don't personally care either way.