From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:49:50 +0100
Message-ID: <87r3gi11j5.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> <878u2qus7e.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49865)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1aUE7m-0007aH-0V
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:51:06 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1aUE7i-0006gK-Qt
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:51:05 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:56438)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1aUE7i-0006gF-Ny
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:51:02 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1aUE7i-0005Wc-G1
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:51:02 -0500
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.22628.B22628.145528500321174@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <878u2qus7e.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Fri, 12 Feb
	2016 13:40:53 +0300")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>
Cc: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

> The fact that we have 2 versions is the answer.  In Emacs UI a package
> is not considered to be obsolete if there is a package definition with
> the same name+version.
>
> That's why "texinfo 6.0" is green in the list, not red (as obsolete
> packages).

Oh, to me, ^ meant =E2=80=9Cupgrade=E2=80=9D, like =E2=80=98guix package -u=
=E2=80=99 but only taking
into account the version number (=E2=80=98guix package -u=E2=80=99 upgrades=
 if the store
file name differs, even if the version number is the same.)

> I believe marking such packages as obsolete is not correct and it may be
> confusing.  See <https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-02-09#T909651>.

I think we need a different solution for packages that have several
series.  For instance, we could have:

  (define gnupg-2.0
    (package =E2=80=A6
      (properties `((series . "2.0")))))

and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
version prefix is =E2=80=9C2.0=E2=80=9D.

WDYT?

Ludo=E2=80=99.