Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
4 participants
  • Alex Kost
  • Andreas Enge
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • zimoun
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Ludovic Courtès
Severity
normal
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 11 Feb 2016 10:11
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)
87r3gjvcgl.fsf@gnu.org
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’.
A
A
Alex Kost wrote on 12 Feb 2016 11:40
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 22628@debbugs.gnu.org)
878u2qus7e.fsf@gmail.com
Ludovic Courtès (2016-02-11 12:11 +0300) wrote:

Toggle quote (6 lines)
> 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

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(because it is obsolete).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
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 12 Feb 2016 14:49
(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 22628@debbugs.gnu.org)
87r3gi11j5.fsf@gnu.org
Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (7 lines)
> 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.)

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> 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’.
A
A
Andreas Enge wrote on 12 Feb 2016 15:01
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)
20160212140105.GA6289@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Toggle quote (9 lines)
> 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
A
A
Alex Kost wrote on 12 Feb 2016 20:29
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 22628@debbugs.gnu.org)
87si0x3ext.fsf@gmail.com
Ludovic Courtès (2016-02-12 16:49 +0300) wrote:

Toggle quote (13 lines)
> 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) :-)

Toggle quote (15 lines)
>> 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
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 2 Dec 2019 18:54
Bug #22628 Hunting: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
CAJ3okZ0AmoLhmoPcUbE03=3+2yuMP7UmrCQ7moeS-fnkgO_Duw@mail.gmail.com
Dear,

The bug [1] is about Emacs-Guix and the installed package list
proposed to upgrade.



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”.
Toggle quote (3 lines)
>>


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


L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 3 Dec 2019 00:03
(name . zimoun)(address . zimon.toutoune@gmail.com)
87lfruib4q.fsf@gnu.org
Hi!

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

Toggle quote (19 lines)
> 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’.
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 5 Dec 2019 18:22
(address . 22628-done@debbugs.gnu.org)
CAJ3okZ2vA4kWxbZsN5rS_94QqUvUhQabMEzPhKUR9hu+GSbaWg@mail.gmail.com
Dear,

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

All the best,
simon
Closed
?