From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Tromey Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Forcing reinstall in package.el Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:42:19 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87sjy03uyw.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87y67rytjc.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871v5g4fr8.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87oc8jdr4w.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1292946318 29033 80.91.229.12 (21 Dec 2010 15:45:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:45:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 21 16:45:14 2010 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 1PV4On-0006YH-CP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:45:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47190 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PV4Mj-0002OY-1e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:43:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59717 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PV4MN-00022g-7w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:42:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PV4M3-0000IE-UH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:42:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6887) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PV4M3-0000HF-Mc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:42:23 -0500 Original-Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBLFgMV6028746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:42:22 -0500 Original-Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBLFgLVK030756; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:42:21 -0500 Original-Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBLFgK4F010595; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:42:20 -0500 Original-Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 673BC378282; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:42:20 -0700 (MST) X-Attribution: Tom In-Reply-To: <87oc8jdr4w.fsf@lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:42:23 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 10.5.11.12 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:133864 Archived-At: Tom> I forgot to mention -- installing older versions can break dependencies. Tom> The package activation code will handle this ok (it will not activate Tom> such packages), but it will probably come as a surprise to the user when Tom> some other package stops working. Ted> Does this mean you're OK with the prompts otherwise? Sure. Ted> I think if the user asks to install an older version and forces Ted> package.el to do it, they should be responsible for any breakage. I just think it is friendlier to do the right thing instead of breaking obscurely, and to make experts take an extra step instead of offering non-expert users a choice that they are often ill-advised to take. Ted> The prompt is too long already so I don't want to extend it with "...and Ted> this will break installed packages if they depend on the newer Ted> version." But maybe package.el could show "broken" packages that can't Ted> be activated because of the version mismatch? Or is that already covered? It doesn't show them specially right now, but I think it could. Tom