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(because it is obsolete).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
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 22628@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 22628
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch