bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

In current Guix master we have Texinfo 6.0 and 6.1.  With 6.0 installed
in my profile, hitting ^ in the M-x guix-installed-packages buffer does
not mark Texinfo as a candidate for upgrade.

Ludo’.

bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

[Alex Kost]

Ludovic Courtès (2016-02-11 12:11 +0300) wrote:

> Hello!
>
> In current Guix master we have Texinfo 6.0 and 6.1.  With 6.0 installed
> in my profile, hitting ^ in the M-x guix-installed-packages buffer does
> not mark Texinfo as a candidate for upgrade.

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).

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>.

For example, if a user makes a package for some old version, (s)he wants
to use it and probably doesn't want it to be updated by accident
(because it is obsolete).

-- 
Alex

bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

[Ludovic Courtès]

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 “upgrade”, like ‘guix package -u’ but only taking
into account the version number (‘guix package -u’ 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 …
      (properties `((series . "2.0")))))

and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
version prefix is “2.0”.

WDYT?

Ludo’.

bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

[Andreas Enge]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I think we need a different solution for packages that have several
> series.  For instance, we could have:
>   (define gnupg-2.0
>     (package …
>       (properties `((series . "2.0")))))
> and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
> version prefix is “2.0”.
> WDYT?

This is so obvious that one wonders how we did not think of it earlier :-)

Andreas

bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

[Alex Kost]

Ludovic Courtès (2016-02-12 16:49 +0300) wrote:

> 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 “upgrade”, like ‘guix package -u’ but only taking
> into account the version number (‘guix package -u’ upgrades if the store
> file name differs, even if the version number is the same.)

OK, you can still mark it for upgrading using "U" key.  If you don't mind
I wouldn't like to change the current behavior (at least now) :-)

>> 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 …
>       (properties `((series . "2.0")))))
>
> and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
> version prefix is “2.0”.
>
> WDYT?

Yeah, this looks like a great solution for such issues!

-- 
Alex

bug#22628: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

[zimoun]

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 …
      (properties `((series . "2.0")))))

and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
version prefix is “2.0”.
>>


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=22628#11

bug#22628: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

[Ludovic Courtès]

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 …
>       (properties `((series . "2.0")))))
>
> and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
> version prefix is “2.0”.
>>>
>
>
> 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’s 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’.

bug#22628: Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

[zimoun]

Dear,

Let the future speaks. :-)
Closing and keeping in mind this kind of feature.

All the best,
simon