From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Subject: bug#22628: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list
 misses some upgrades
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:03:01 +0100
Message-ID: <87lfruib4q.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <CAJ3okZ0AmoLhmoPcUbE03=3+2yuMP7UmrCQ7moeS-fnkgO_Duw@mail.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 ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59680)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ibujc-0000HF-OT
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:04:05 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ibuja-0005oV-E4
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:04:03 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:33105)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1ibuja-0005o3-9X
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:04:02 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ibuja-0003gj-4j
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:04:02 -0500
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.22628.B22628.157532781714143@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3okZ0AmoLhmoPcUbE03=3+2yuMP7UmrCQ7moeS-fnkgO_Duw@mail.gmail.com>
 (zimoun's message of "Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:54:32 +0100")
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: <https://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" <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>, 22628@debbugs.gnu.org

Hi!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> 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 think it=E2=80=99s the kind of thing that would be nice but is not often
useful, so the benefit/cost ratio may not be that high.  :-)

No objection to closing the bug!

Ludo=E2=80=99.