GNU bug report logs - #77137
package.el computes false-positive obsolete statuses

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 77137 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

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

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

From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: package.el computes false-positive obsolete statuses
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:48:36 -0400

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

Example, using the situation in
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=77134 where I have "dirvish"
installed from both non-GNU ELPA and MELPA, claims that MELPA is obsolete
when it is actually the more recent version.  Not having dived deep, I see
two potential areas of false positives in the code.  One is comparing
incompatible version numbers from differing archive sources; e.g., non-GNU
ELPA says "2.2.7" while MELPA says "20250319.1508".  The other suggests
unsigned packages have lower precedence than signed packages independent of
their recency.  Again, these could be wrong but I looked only for a minute.

-Stephane

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #8 received at 77137 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
To: 77137 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Subject: Re: bug#77137: package.el computes false-positive obsolete statuses
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 07:36:52 -0400

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

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:51 AM Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Example, using the situation in
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=77134 where I have
> "dirvish" installed from both non-GNU ELPA and MELPA, claims that MELPA is
> obsolete when it is actually the more recent version.  Not having dived
> deep, I see two potential areas of false positives in the code.  One is
> comparing incompatible version numbers from differing archive sources;
> e.g., non-GNU ELPA says "2.2.7" while MELPA says "20250319.1508".  The
> other suggests unsigned packages have lower precedence than signed packages
> independent of their recency.  Again, these could be wrong but I looked
> only for a minute.
>

It would be good to refine package.el's computation and handling of
"obsolete" packages.

-Stephane

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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