GNU bug report logs - #52351
Is bad-packages-alist still relevant?

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 52351 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 52351 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Is bad-packages-alist still relevant?
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 15:10:48 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Severity: wishlist

Is bad-packages-alist still relevant now that we have package.el or
should it just be removed, as in the attached?

It was added in this commit and hasn't seen much use since, AFAICT:

    commit a2603048ce283d22b37b35c9098d4583db244073
    Author: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
    Date:   Tue Aug 14 07:41:59 2007 +0000

        (bad-packages-alist): New constant.
        (bad-package-check): New function.  Together, these two add
        elements to `after-load-alist' to check for problematic external
        packages.

The idea is to give warnings for incompatible external packages, but
this should be rather unusual these days, as most packages will be
installed with package.el and any incompatibilities are better handled
in that context.  Furthermore, it seems to currently just warn about
really ancient versions of semantic and cua-mode.

IOW, not a bad idea at the time, but the passing of time has meant that
it's hard to see the relevance of the feature.

[0001-Remove-bad-packages-alist.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #10 received at 52351 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, 52351 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#52351: Is bad-packages-alist still relevant?
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:27:23 +0100

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> IOW, not a bad idea at the time, but the passing of time has meant that
> it's hard to see the relevance of the feature.

Yeah, it doesn't seem very useful to me.  We should probably obsolete
it, though, instead of removing it outright, I guess?  (Even if it's a
defconst.)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #13 received at 52351 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, 52351 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#52351: Is bad-packages-alist still relevant?
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 20:00:54 +0000

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Yeah, it doesn't seem very useful to me.  We should probably obsolete
> it, though, instead of removing it outright, I guess?  (Even if it's a
> defconst.)

Sure, we might as well obsolete it.

Message #16 received at 52351 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, 52351 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#52351: Is bad-packages-alist still relevant?
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 07:19:46 -0800

close 52351 29.1
thanks

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:
>
>> IOW, not a bad idea at the time, but the passing of time has meant that
>> it's hard to see the relevance of the feature.
>
> Yeah, it doesn't seem very useful to me.  We should probably obsolete
> it, though, instead of removing it outright, I guess?  (Even if it's a
> defconst.)

No further comments within 9 days, so I have now made it obsolete on
master (commit 8f82a83cae).

Message #21 received at 52351 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: rgm <at> gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, 52351 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#52351: Is bad-packages-alist still relevant?
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 23:15:31 -0500

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

bad-packages-alist may be useful again some day, so please restore its
non-obsoleteness.

The specific issue about Semantic and Emacs 22 is no longer pertinent,
so we should set the variable's default value to nil.

However, that kind of problem could happen again some day.  We hope it
won't, but few of us are perfect and none of us is precognitive.  Why
not be prepared in case such problems occur again?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Message #24 received at 52351 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: rms <at> gnu.org
Cc: rgm <at> gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, 52351 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#52351: Is bad-packages-alist still relevant?
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 02:02:14 -0800

Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org> writes:

> bad-packages-alist may be useful again some day, so please restore its
> non-obsoleteness.
>
> The specific issue about Semantic and Emacs 22 is no longer pertinent,
> so we should set the variable's default value to nil.
>
> However, that kind of problem could happen again some day.  We hope it
> won't, but few of us are perfect and none of us is precognitive.  Why
> not be prepared in case such problems occur again?

Beyond the original Semantic case, this hasn't seen much use in 15
years.  If we need it back in the future, we can make it non-obsolete
then.  We have another decade to think about its obsoletion before it
would normally be considered for final removal.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.