From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: bug#22628: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:54:32 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56065) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ibpud-0008D0-R0 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:55:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ibpuY-0005r1-SK for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:55:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:32920) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ibpuY-0005qv-Ok for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:55:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ibpuY-0003Ze-KY for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:55:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org> Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: 22628@debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Alex Kost , Andreas Enge Dear, The bug [1] is about Emacs-Guix and the installed package list proposed to upgrade. [1] http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/22628 To be precise, the wish that Ludo wrote [2] is: << 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. >> What is the status of such? Does it still make sense? Personally, I do not feel the need of the series property, what the others think? I propose to close this long standing bug. :-) All the best, simon [2] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D22628#11