From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Artur Malabarba Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] scratch/package-fix e5d5cdf 1/2: emacs-lisp/package.el: Indicate incompatible packages. Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:18:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150211170820.10979.16862@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> Reply-To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134ea06758d6a050efdef4d X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423858709 13563 80.91.229.3 (13 Feb 2015 20:18:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: chad , emacs-devel To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 13 21:18:28 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YMMh2-0002YE-AB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:18:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57352 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YMMh1-0000Lp-Jn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:18:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35763) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YMMgl-0000Lk-SU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:18:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YMMgl-0001iG-3H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:18:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]:62969) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YMMgk-0001i8-Tw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:18:11 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id wo20so24106685obc.7 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:18:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zx9e/7xd9JC4YaMdNOI3x9kUoDCLqFrq80cNmMnELGg=; b=j71S2sC+7MxLLKPP2n4vgeFhuNgZ9VgUxIqfpXcerlT/ojmKFzXvBsbqy7LgzoFtcs tlhAjysE8KYE2wvst+frD//i/HfNOv+b0JJhTVd3zIjLy5ZmFEzKf8aIdzBL4FwvpvW0 NcqtwZml3ZfjOGkCZE3divXL2ZAEnUWguQ9X+uv7V+u2ho8JXV/7BmPSFaJAtgGaw75I koCpnFr4VZyUrkJm9g8U65fga2+gTWWRVlCn4zqo42/na9sfIg8klHitIfs1Cg+W7BY0 SuiMl56KQyzy0UXixxnFs0HWNE5UOLeSG7BzQJXmuJyYfB8fEXVh7ng5wFLwab6z03V/ LUuQ== X-Received: by 10.202.203.78 with SMTP id b75mr7142151oig.27.1423858690524; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:18:10 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.76.125.1 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:18:10 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.76.125.1 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:18:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: XR94OM0B6IAFXf_UuIREgd_LqtA X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:183025 Archived-At: --001a1134ea06758d6a050efdef4d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Maybe you're right. Just like installation may fail because > a dependency is missing. Maybe marking those things as > uninstallable/incompatible is good, but only if we can explain > concisely/easily enough to the user why it's uninstallable/incompatible. Yes, it would be good to add that to the describe package buffer. package--incompatible-p already returns the reason why the package is incompatible, so it's just a matter of formating and printing. --001a1134ea06758d6a050efdef4d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Maybe you're right.=C2=A0 Just like installation ma= y fail because
> a dependency is missing.=C2=A0 Maybe marking those things as
> uninstallable/incompatible is good, but only if we can explain
> concisely/easily enough to the user why it's uninstallable/incompa= tible.

Yes, it would be good to add that to the describe package bu= ffer. package--incompatible-p already returns the reason why the package is= incompatible, so it's just a matter of formating and printing.

--001a1134ea06758d6a050efdef4d--