From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=A1vora?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#62720: 29.0.60; Not easy at all to upgrade :core packages like Eglot Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:05:30 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87a5zj2vfo.fsf@gmail.com> <831qkp6o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn2h5825.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2gkhzr.fsf@posteo.net> <83cz485oxi.fsf@gnu.org> <87leiwdyff.fsf@posteo.net> <834jpk5hih.fsf@gnu.org> <871qkom3fj.fsf@posteo.net> <83mt3b4yfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87edonlsxi.fsf@posteo.net> <83jzyf4vzb.fsf@gnu.org> <871qknllkj.fsf@posteo.net> <83fs934pjf.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn2fk47y.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfd2g2ek.fsf@gnu.org> <875y9yfxrr.fsf@gmail.com> <87y1muefks.fsf@gmail.com> 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="3798"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Philip Kaludercic , larsi@gnus.org, Robert Pluim , Eli Zaretskii , 62720@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 14 18:08:38 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 1pnLyX-0000lc-DI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:08:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLw6-0001kJ-IA; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:06:09 -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 1pnLw2-0001dn-RG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:06:02 -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 1pnLw2-0000GP-It for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:06:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLw2-0008Jz-D3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:06:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=A1vora?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:06:02 +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=B62720.168148834931955 (code B ref 62720); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:06:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62720) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2023 16:05:49 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47392 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLvp-0008JL-5C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:05:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ot1-f48.google.com ([209.85.210.48]:39710) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pnLvn-0008J4-AF for 62720@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:05:48 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ot1-f48.google.com with SMTP id k101-20020a9d19ee000000b006a14270bc7eso6514001otk.6 for <62720@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:05:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681488341; x=1684080341; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=mc92ob5LjkOAbNZY8vd3ELBs5dZ2Azd7jVKxoITac0I=; b=mcYxH8vTwtaEoZxT2NEXvdfrjs7EnMo72Pz15OOvpwFwj954fXv9RItH8irMtNVdkY UpKtuZUksGc7HigwvJ0Ho2hgn4tu93ZLDIRNTf/EKfD0SgQY81Ikc6WRbpIL7qWgBcKd KOv99WfaaGVRXx/iZLRYhty6cHbzB/6cHZlzr+1C2m3l2Zj/LCrQspVKK0O9ATziY9JI gi4cdMJeWa4TvRBMhgNJq8ezU0ysuKGzhicVOwt03y3s980mhzL0oqGtvyjQ1flOHawM zoEFpsbRvXa0aTXdNcue5mWAlc6V33Zsak2t0+k6rMRtQVPUwjSKclObcr2QMOAi6UIt e0PA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681488341; x=1684080341; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mc92ob5LjkOAbNZY8vd3ELBs5dZ2Azd7jVKxoITac0I=; b=QjXb5S7bAO1tTe8wlYoyfxuwxaghsKqzgmabObhawLONizTwTh7isZk3ZhpRx9AQdi sDrRYlJAjdel8XDNX+jGvq9R0W0maUSYcAFAIPpWo983UJ+wOyhPDL04Umei+sWopirq 9VY+6HOh10BfDraT+oJR0xSoczEQV4NYBPee3HyDqyTMJLASppTVT2VLh/RN0B0EAUl+ oFFXvloj8d0ORPlhtnO+T0RZvXPrgcMZ64RXNkV0SC4ldna7HAryRVlyr6ggNLVzllie yCruq62Hou7x49mlvFQackEsN5hyhxlDTBBG1NG3JuyMsXqcRt+/7c6OcRHKZki/tlzX B2GQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dOHIG8bvAF18LdLbrnWA+RhkTJe77BZzKoDGGTPRYmd9TAzp3W 5ScDMpC5oEwniE2qbqBS+/PTm0GpFI0FXY32G9Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Z9VMCdRPSMbAJrZBbLoqEnSuXJShbqGDgyv3WnyZV3D8L5fYhvmSEkc0lRfINNN73AEyfTMAq/b9oUQX9JM1Y= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:61cf:0:b0:6a4:4bce:fa1a with SMTP id h15-20020a9d61cf000000b006a44bcefa1amr423895otk.4.1681488341526; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:05:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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:259934 Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 4:52=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > Maybe you can answer this: if a user is setting up Emacs 28 in company > > laptop machines regularly and does M-x package-install RET eglot RET th= ere, > > or has a script with (package-install 'eglot), should or shouldn't this > > user, in your opinion, be allowed to do exactly the same, with the same > > predictable results (in this case getting the latest Eglot), when she s= tarts > > doing the same in Emacs 29, which now contains Eglot as a built-in? > > Good point. I think the answer is that we should distinguish "install" > from "upgrade" (and offer a way to do both, of course). > > And I think we do want to break backward compatibility here (arguably we > even can't not break compatibility), because the Emacs<29 semantics of > `package-install` is "broken", since it does "install&upgrade" for > non-builtin packages but not for builtin packages: either we keep that > semantics and compatibility is broken when packages move to/from > builtin, or we change that semantics and compatibility is broken by the > change in semantics :-) I would think it's too late in the game to break compatibility. Naming aside package-install has certain behaviour that for a certain set of inputs used to produce predictable things. Now, for the same inputs it does nothing on Emacs 29. I think it should do the same thing, not only because it's nicer for the unsuspecting user, but also because trying to protect this user from "unintentional" upgrade of certain "unstable" packages, as it seems to be the idea here, is a losing game anyway, just because dependencies. Presumably, the packaging system where it takes less than a day to fix release a bug fix and deliver this to the archives, should be the protection.