GNU logs - #79881, boring messages

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments
Resent-From: Richard Stallman <rms@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 20:22:16 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.79881.B.17641021293928 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Reply-To: rms@HIDDEN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8
From: Richard Stallman <rms@HIDDEN>
Message-Id: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:29 -0500
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

[[[ 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. ]]]

I found it counterintuitive that package-install rejects as argument
the name of a locally installed package.  It seemed like a bug.

It would be much clearer to accept the argument and then report
(message "`%s' already installed" package-name)

Likewise for package-update.

-- 
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 sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: rms@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#79881: Acknowledgement (Package-install and package-update
 arguments)
Message-ID: <handler.79881.B.17641021293928.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 79881
X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs
Reply-To: 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 20:22:17 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
79881: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D79881
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 11:35:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.79881.B79881.176441609214762 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: rms@HIDDEN, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
Cc: 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 13:34:36 +0200
Message-Id: <86iket6pir.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN> (message from Richard
 Stallman on Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:29 -0500)
References: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN>
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@HIDDEN>
> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:29 -0500
> 
> I found it counterintuitive that package-install rejects as argument
> the name of a locally installed package.  It seemed like a bug.
> 
> It would be much clearer to accept the argument and then report
> (message "`%s' already installed" package-name)
> 
> Likewise for package-update.

Thanks.

Philip, any comments or suggestions?

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments
Resent-From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:16:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.79881.B79881.176462012632413 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Cc: 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms@HIDDEN
From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <86iket6pir.fsf@HIDDEN>
References: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN> <86iket6pir.fsf@HIDDEN>
OpenPGP: id=7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66;
 url="https://keys.openpgp.org/vks/v1/by-fingerprint/7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66";
 preference=signencrypt
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:15:10 +0000
Message-ID: <87cy4y6jsj.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes:

>> From: Richard Stallman <rms@HIDDEN>
>> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:29 -0500
>> 
>> I found it counterintuitive that package-install rejects as argument
>> the name of a locally installed package.  It seemed like a bug.
>> 
>> It would be much clearer to accept the argument and then report
>> (message "`%s' already installed" package-name)
>> 
>> Likewise for package-update.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Philip, any comments or suggestions?

It should be easy to implement this for package-install:


--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/x-patch
Content-Disposition: inline

diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el
index aedde50d14d..52d272bae4c 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el
@@ -2243,17 +2243,14 @@ package-install
      (package--archives-initialize)
      (list (intern (completing-read
                     "Install package: "
-                    (mapcan
-                     (lambda (elt)
-                       (and (or (and (or current-prefix-arg
-                                         package-install-upgrade-built-in)
-                                     (package--active-built-in-p (car elt)))
-                                (not (package-installed-p (car elt))))
-                            (list (symbol-name (car elt)))))
-                     package-archive-contents)
+                    package-archive-contents
                     nil t))
            nil)))
   (cl-check-type pkg (or symbol package-desc))
+  (when (or (and package-install-upgrade-built-in
+                 (package--active-built-in-p pkg))
+            (package-installed-p pkg))
+    (user-error "Package is already installed"))
   (package--archives-initialize)
   (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'package-menu--post-refresh)
   (let ((name (if (package-desc-p pkg)

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain


but I hesitate about package-update, as people might be using the
completion prompt to check for possible package upgrades, and changing
the behaviour to suddenly include a list of all installed packages might
seem like a degradation.

--=-=-=--

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2025 14:40:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.79881.B79881.176468639313429 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 79881
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
Cc: 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms@HIDDEN
Received: via spool by 79881-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B79881.176468639313429
          (code B ref 79881); Tue, 02 Dec 2025 14:40:02 +0000
Received: (at 79881) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Dec 2025 14:39:53 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59346 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1vQRXk-0003UU-Tq
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 09:39:53 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37576)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1vQRXi-0003U1-0Q
 for 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 09:39:51 -0500
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1vQRXb-00019V-Ul; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 09:39:43 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
 s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
 mime-version; bh=BM/HzpxDqmsqG0hdCAdIv60G4jkm6RYkZu4W/wcxFRY=; b=IO5upmNRTYBe
 URFuGx91Arj21fCFky9c+ninNupB74yzPY9lieS3ev6elUntjl6gKmBdcrTIQH+xqS8uVpipqWaHq
 dZhLr+x9bvP+eR7l40NtTfXpSP3XStvWgbQzMKXGFywtxk3kIelIwmmSgoJlaLOEbthd/w+/gxDCd
 90KB4xxUXAmhUSeDoNuUX5INgHZ/vz1ebWZrp+IDwkB56fEQtpJQVpuBV+Ifzb43hQI+RLjkWLz/q
 5UcPY4NfgFcpz2m/N9wyuRqHxGRbolwB2hZli2fwLNLksUBXHMaJKlH7sItiCtYNJTOGbdXh7R7g5
 QoSfmposUyAPsjYOCoNtRg==;
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2025 16:39:32 +0200
Message-Id: <861pld3q3f.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <87cy4y6jsj.fsf@HIDDEN> (message from Philip Kaludercic on
 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:15:10 +0000)
References: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN> <86iket6pir.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87cy4y6jsj.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
> Cc: rms@HIDDEN,  79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:15:10 +0000
> 
> > Philip, any comments or suggestions?
> 
> It should be easy to implement this for package-install:

Then maybe we should do it?

> but I hesitate about package-update, as people might be using the
> completion prompt to check for possible package upgrades, and changing
> the behaviour to suddenly include a list of all installed packages might
> seem like a degradation.

Then maybe a user option, by default off, should do?

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments
Resent-From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 19:35:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.79881.B79881.176479048327128 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 79881
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Cc: 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms@HIDDEN, Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Received: via spool by 79881-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B79881.176479048327128
          (code B ref 79881); Wed, 03 Dec 2025 19:35:02 +0000
Received: (at 79881) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Dec 2025 19:34:43 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43188 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1vQscZ-00072z-Ix
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:34:42 -0500
Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:59951)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <philipk@HIDDEN>)
 id 1vQscV-00070q-DB
 for 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:34:37 -0500
Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) 
 by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D575240027
 for <79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed,  3 Dec 2025 20:34:28 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=posteo.net; s=2017;
 t=1764790469; bh=OsxewV9FwbcpsUi1vgYQJKK6MVb8Rxu/lcykaVCkCKA=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:OpenPGP:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:
 Content-Type:From;
 b=dcxW1ZjroSoow5Flg1xwWCRYbSlwe8trO68xAdEI6EvypDl4PRc6yiExhnsl7pujI
 BUpPstIyiM8Xj0JsClXezFy0E5oMHR2l6gUQ/HWk0lmx1rkqJ9Ytd0SVLZZodBuQMW
 rT80mRW6y8o8+PWj3RpUzGQE/7NLOQIjcAWgfefVlpQq1KK2zjoPRgVgxVneLkYctS
 tq3SmFRptXYQ5NGjpWk+Xq0riiBpOpBF7tLbBBWWXF3STZ7ZUZ7aEagjfeAIshaSTf
 qlwdKYV6xF4oVHW9uzqRYKH1b54cQJCPSDsjrHD4RVtteK3j4N0JkACg8WwBW/u/nB
 cJw/HyINF5ZTQ==
Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4dM7BC2W0Dz9rxn;
 Wed,  3 Dec 2025 20:34:27 +0100 (CET)
From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <861pld3q3f.fsf@HIDDEN>
References: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN> <86iket6pir.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87cy4y6jsj.fsf@HIDDEN> <861pld3q3f.fsf@HIDDEN>
OpenPGP: id=7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66;
 url="https://keys.openpgp.org/vks/v1/by-fingerprint/7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66";
 preference=signencrypt
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 19:34:28 +0000
Message-ID: <87pl8v5phb.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
>> Cc: rms@HIDDEN,  79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:15:10 +0000
>> 
>> > Philip, any comments or suggestions?
>> 
>> It should be easy to implement this for package-install:
>
> Then maybe we should do it?

I've added Stefan to hear a second opinion.  But generally speaking I
feel like this is a general UI/UX question that we have to ask
ourselves when it comes to minibuffer completion.

>> but I hesitate about package-update, as people might be using the
>> completion prompt to check for possible package upgrades, and changing
>> the behaviour to suddenly include a list of all installed packages might
>> seem like a degradation.
>
> Then maybe a user option, by default off, should do?

I have a feeling that it wouldn't be that useful, because the problem is
most probably encountered by people who wouldn't know about the option,
so we are just reducing the question of how the completion should behave
to what the default value of a user option should be.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 12:14:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.79881.B79881.176623281223372 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 79881
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>, Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Cc: 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms@HIDDEN
Received: via spool by 79881-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B79881.176623281223372
          (code B ref 79881); Sat, 20 Dec 2025 12:14:02 +0000
Received: (at 79881) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Dec 2025 12:13:32 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48186 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1vWvq0-00064s-3c
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:13:32 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47178)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1vWvpx-00064a-6N
 for 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:13:30 -0500
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1vWvpp-0000tT-Pe; Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:13:22 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
 s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
 mime-version; bh=CJ8SZcFAlADjNy8jEmkdvSeZOJ30dgDjkdZ2DsOa/8A=; b=Hdva9IRVhbB1
 +X22imydFFsdgJxeacQmBgGJar4C7IvRV9mw4zZD/wgpnI6S8mBPYIzdKkyci/aHyP4KTOPHy7T2t
 wtt5ImYSaMuYshOwloXOuBpwoN8Eiso533HUayj+H8IuvQen9RA0iFPRU5HesTJEahqF7oQcFYIgs
 FGyN1MriedubMeoyIU/xLauyq4E+FoP4cKJ9/x+GdkiUmZGOMkTe1F4ZG9yh2kxDyaYAYhjzgjKBh
 YRNIkLyhnFhY5uounaXa5u2qrHn+ln6wutKIr0SFvA4azseVIgUg4m0fkYTGTPrX48L/em5w7YaGj
 8kyxJXtU2jIbf1GGrqZk2w==;
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 14:13:10 +0200
Message-Id: <86qzspz6zt.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <87pl8v5phb.fsf@HIDDEN> (message from Philip Kaludercic on
 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 19:34:28 +0000)
References: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN> <86iket6pir.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87cy4y6jsj.fsf@HIDDEN> <861pld3q3f.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87pl8v5phb.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

Ping!  How can we make further progress with this issue?  Stefan,
would you please chime in?

> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
> Cc: rms@HIDDEN,  79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, "Stefan Monnier"
>  <monnier@HIDDEN>
> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 19:34:28 +0000
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes:
> 
> >> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
> >> Cc: rms@HIDDEN,  79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:15:10 +0000
> >> 
> >> > Philip, any comments or suggestions?
> >> 
> >> It should be easy to implement this for package-install:
> >
> > Then maybe we should do it?
> 
> I've added Stefan to hear a second opinion.  But generally speaking I
> feel like this is a general UI/UX question that we have to ask
> ourselves when it comes to minibuffer completion.
> 
> >> but I hesitate about package-update, as people might be using the
> >> completion prompt to check for possible package upgrades, and changing
> >> the behaviour to suddenly include a list of all installed packages might
> >> seem like a degradation.
> >
> > Then maybe a user option, by default off, should do?
> 
> I have a feeling that it wouldn't be that useful, because the problem is
> most probably encountered by people who wouldn't know about the option,
> so we are just reducing the question of how the completion should behave
> to what the default value of a user option should be.
>

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments
Resent-From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 18:34:03 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.79881.B79881.176625560712986 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 79881
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms@HIDDEN
Received: via spool by 79881-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B79881.176625560712986
          (code B ref 79881); Sat, 20 Dec 2025 18:34:03 +0000
Received: (at 79881) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Dec 2025 18:33:27 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52985 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1vX1lf-0003NN-A2
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2025 13:33:27 -0500
Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:7882)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <monnier@HIDDEN>)
 id 1vX1lc-0003N5-O5
 for 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2025 13:33:25 -0500
Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 55594441575;
 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 13:33:19 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca;
 s=mail; t=1766255598;
 bh=D8YGfi90x+dcj8v7dHW0N40c6+hiOM9EjtfDynj3E1Q=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From;
 b=VifBghVCx8RVlFgBZjzpyvJRbGodwsX5Nq6XU30vKdxtLCDk1lQ0wG0nf4YwY5886
 yA9ooyQrHbVeR7j9h61GGJIqZoDZOSUxZsU8WnTw1mWp836IlrPZqBJN+P0ZI6CcD9
 QyP3Iq3Yj9J1k+u/dAN2xPFY02kFkcbNRUcSOU12zOO5MV7uZnLDFJxoX8dPdAAwQ2
 Uun7jIL5zdGIBtL2f68Cu8nRWp0gMVrn6vW/YKpN2WEEO+X/LBFELSGU0NjT8r2DAe
 Al5P88e35Qm8elWSmB0NoOzX+KtTIGdfboIG9U7o7Q4HDCEDOAu1NH1KVfsppNcdby
 Osd6KEzIacB9A==
Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 22378441562;
 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 13:33:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pastel (104-195-235-55.cpe.teksavvy.com [104.195.235.55])
 by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E507B12068E;
 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 13:33:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <87pl8v5phb.fsf@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <jwv5xa1f1m0.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
References: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN> <86iket6pir.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87cy4y6jsj.fsf@HIDDEN> <861pld3q3f.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87pl8v5phb.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 13:33:16 -0500
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results:  0
 ALL_TRUSTED                -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
 AWL -0.201 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DKIM_SIGNED               0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
 DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from
 domain
X-SPAM-LEVEL: 
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

>>> > Philip, any comments or suggestions?
>>> 
>>> It should be easy to implement this for package-install:
>>
>> Then maybe we should do it?
>
> I've added Stefan to hear a second opinion.  But generally speaking I
> feel like this is a general UI/UX question that we have to ask
> ourselves when it comes to minibuffer completion.

Sounds like a good change to me.  I expect that removing the few already
installed packages is rarely useful.

>>> but I hesitate about package-update, as people might be using the
>>> completion prompt to check for possible package upgrades, and changing
>>> the behaviour to suddenly include a list of all installed packages might
>>> seem like a degradation.

Agreed.  Here, the filtering should usually result in a very small list
of relevant completions, so changing it to list all packages is a much more
drastic change.

>> Then maybe a user option, by default off, should do?
> I have a feeling that it wouldn't be that useful, because the problem is
> most probably encountered by people who wouldn't know about the option,
> so we are just reducing the question of how the completion should behave
> to what the default value of a user option should be.

+1


        Stefan

Message sent:

MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#79881: closed (Package-install and package-update arguments)
CC: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Message-ID: <handler.79881.D79881.1766320153833.ackdone <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <877bugyq5t.fsf@HIDDEN> <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: closed 79881
X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:30:02 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1766320202-934-0"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

------------=_1766320202-934-0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Your message dated Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:29:03 +0000
with message-id <877bugyq5t.fsf@HIDDEN>
and subject line Re: bug#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #79881,
regarding Package-install and package-update arguments
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@HIDDEN)


--=20
79881: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D79881
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

------------=_1766320202-934-0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Nov 2025 20:22:09 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41842 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1vNzY8-000113-98
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 15:22:09 -0500
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:42226)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <rms@HIDDEN>) id 1vN24g-0003eV-AR
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:47 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rms@HIDDEN>) id 1vN24W-0007F9-Qx
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:36 -0500
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rms@HIDDEN>) id 1vN24T-0004j7-It
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:33 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
 s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=Date:Subject:To:From:mime-version:in-reply-to:
 references; bh=UKZk8g8f9qGhS6zVuNSQ9osfRPC8X5FXcPplZ0FCdkY=; b=ZF6f0JN/tjOgbu
 XVFWfqoO2pK1upSEck2Ez+d9C4t8gZD8gic0lfqsCqcre/tPU8NTzrV8kgGErEMkuUUT04HdgCpBj
 6PE86PUcOCn0FoCcjQZqmWP0Uwr6sStw3DovXQ6MgJopwrwHBoJcn2BpQMUMN6i5tm0ezCPZHItx6
 zXvDro/1y87718oqpDxQAN4oO6y9XDPCNQ0NtDpfxzhkez36AHi5/PgpjfwRct2Hr2MBm6YqNBhB/
 etXOUsH80wlGQgZsUIr27y4ki5VAO5RnXI8bMFMpZtdZFlDzLR3OzWp7v4NuvEYq+oGp6TSPRnHMH
 CsxlnhY3QiqtuvbA74QQ==;
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <rms@HIDDEN>)
 id 1vN24P-0002xR-9W; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:29 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8
From: Richard Stallman <rms@HIDDEN>
To: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Subject: Package-install and package-update arguments
Message-Id: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:29 -0500
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: rms@HIDDEN
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

[[[ 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. ]]]

I found it counterintuitive that package-install rejects as argument
the name of a locally installed package.  It seemed like a bug.

It would be much clearer to accept the argument and then report
(message "`%s' already installed" package-name)

Likewise for package-update.

-- 
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)





------------=_1766320202-934-0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Received: (at 79881-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Dec 2025 12:29:13 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35020 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1vXIYj-0000DN-Ds
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2025 07:29:13 -0500
Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:55635)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <philipk@HIDDEN>)
 id 1vXIYg-0000D4-FW
 for 79881-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2025 07:29:11 -0500
Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) 
 by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5313C240027
 for <79881-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 21 Dec 2025 13:29:04 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=posteo.net; s=2017;
 t=1766320144; bh=cOIhoik7zbRAz6KvJWzbDLSu8RDVVrbaNIcSSGHRt/g=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:OpenPGP:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:
 Content-Type:From;
 b=Xbc47o6wPQTU185WwxTnGjYid28N8ndlR1FLK4CG9R5vFncRfQFXBGXuSRhrSBV2T
 Dol14UjZ2noE1bHQD3gmUnuoJMGGK5rHtvu94ZFv1HHbSzR4RqAgmQeh998QKFukPI
 T12h6rmnmNlI67sDo7F0zt9A7Pp0rwy39Zjn+RJPWBU2WRHByChzE9aOFKXDhj/o31
 920wpRFyR2p6xmJbPAWOQCWMmwOJ7NKfMrsunSOjY0dCghrXaq7Cj70hP30fkoB+TV
 ZTi+omAfyMEo8BxpRzHBpiJClchDu8KvFimX76rGdgsIooXBfzhUKa6pzPkSh9Dq1x
 TefVYw6zVlo9A==
Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4dZ0v30ypTz9rxG;
 Sun, 21 Dec 2025 13:29:02 +0100 (CET)
From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments
In-Reply-To: <jwv5xa1f1m0.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
References: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN> <86iket6pir.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87cy4y6jsj.fsf@HIDDEN> <861pld3q3f.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87pl8v5phb.fsf@HIDDEN> <jwv5xa1f1m0.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
OpenPGP: id=7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66;
 url="https://keys.openpgp.org/vks/v1/by-fingerprint/7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66";
 preference=signencrypt
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:29:03 +0000
Message-ID: <877bugyq5t.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 79881-done
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 79881-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms@HIDDEN
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)


Thanks for confirming my hunches.  I pushed the change and will close
the bug report.

Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN> writes:

>>>> > Philip, any comments or suggestions?
>>>> 
>>>> It should be easy to implement this for package-install:
>>>
>>> Then maybe we should do it?
>>
>> I've added Stefan to hear a second opinion.  But generally speaking I
>> feel like this is a general UI/UX question that we have to ask
>> ourselves when it comes to minibuffer completion.
>
> Sounds like a good change to me.  I expect that removing the few already
> installed packages is rarely useful.
>
>>>> but I hesitate about package-update, as people might be using the
>>>> completion prompt to check for possible package upgrades, and changing
>>>> the behaviour to suddenly include a list of all installed packages might
>>>> seem like a degradation.
>
> Agreed.  Here, the filtering should usually result in a very small list
> of relevant completions, so changing it to list all packages is a much more
> drastic change.
>
>>> Then maybe a user option, by default off, should do?
>> I have a feeling that it wouldn't be that useful, because the problem is
>> most probably encountered by people who wouldn't know about the option,
>> so we are just reducing the question of how the completion should behave
>> to what the default value of a user option should be.
>
> +1
>
>
>         Stefan


------------=_1766320202-934-0--

Message sent:

MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: rms@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#79881: closed (Re: bug#79881: Package-install and
 package-update arguments)
Message-ID: <handler.79881.D79881.1766320153833.notifdone <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <877bugyq5t.fsf@HIDDEN> <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 79881
X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs
Reply-To: 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:30:03 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1766320203-934-1"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

------------=_1766320203-934-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Your bug report

#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 79881 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

--=20
79881: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D79881
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

------------=_1766320203-934-1
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Received: (at 79881-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Dec 2025 12:29:13 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35020 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1vXIYj-0000DN-Ds
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2025 07:29:13 -0500
Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:55635)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <philipk@HIDDEN>)
 id 1vXIYg-0000D4-FW
 for 79881-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2025 07:29:11 -0500
Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) 
 by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5313C240027
 for <79881-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 21 Dec 2025 13:29:04 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=posteo.net; s=2017;
 t=1766320144; bh=cOIhoik7zbRAz6KvJWzbDLSu8RDVVrbaNIcSSGHRt/g=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:OpenPGP:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:
 Content-Type:From;
 b=Xbc47o6wPQTU185WwxTnGjYid28N8ndlR1FLK4CG9R5vFncRfQFXBGXuSRhrSBV2T
 Dol14UjZ2noE1bHQD3gmUnuoJMGGK5rHtvu94ZFv1HHbSzR4RqAgmQeh998QKFukPI
 T12h6rmnmNlI67sDo7F0zt9A7Pp0rwy39Zjn+RJPWBU2WRHByChzE9aOFKXDhj/o31
 920wpRFyR2p6xmJbPAWOQCWMmwOJ7NKfMrsunSOjY0dCghrXaq7Cj70hP30fkoB+TV
 ZTi+omAfyMEo8BxpRzHBpiJClchDu8KvFimX76rGdgsIooXBfzhUKa6pzPkSh9Dq1x
 TefVYw6zVlo9A==
Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4dZ0v30ypTz9rxG;
 Sun, 21 Dec 2025 13:29:02 +0100 (CET)
From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#79881: Package-install and package-update arguments
In-Reply-To: <jwv5xa1f1m0.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
References: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN> <86iket6pir.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87cy4y6jsj.fsf@HIDDEN> <861pld3q3f.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87pl8v5phb.fsf@HIDDEN> <jwv5xa1f1m0.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
OpenPGP: id=7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66;
 url="https://keys.openpgp.org/vks/v1/by-fingerprint/7126E1DE2F0CE35C770BED01F2C3CC513DB89F66";
 preference=signencrypt
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:29:03 +0000
Message-ID: <877bugyq5t.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 79881-done
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 79881-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms@HIDDEN
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)


Thanks for confirming my hunches.  I pushed the change and will close
the bug report.

Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN> writes:

>>>> > Philip, any comments or suggestions?
>>>> 
>>>> It should be easy to implement this for package-install:
>>>
>>> Then maybe we should do it?
>>
>> I've added Stefan to hear a second opinion.  But generally speaking I
>> feel like this is a general UI/UX question that we have to ask
>> ourselves when it comes to minibuffer completion.
>
> Sounds like a good change to me.  I expect that removing the few already
> installed packages is rarely useful.
>
>>>> but I hesitate about package-update, as people might be using the
>>>> completion prompt to check for possible package upgrades, and changing
>>>> the behaviour to suddenly include a list of all installed packages might
>>>> seem like a degradation.
>
> Agreed.  Here, the filtering should usually result in a very small list
> of relevant completions, so changing it to list all packages is a much more
> drastic change.
>
>>> Then maybe a user option, by default off, should do?
>> I have a feeling that it wouldn't be that useful, because the problem is
>> most probably encountered by people who wouldn't know about the option,
>> so we are just reducing the question of how the completion should behave
>> to what the default value of a user option should be.
>
> +1
>
>
>         Stefan


------------=_1766320203-934-1
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Nov 2025 20:22:09 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41842 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1vNzY8-000113-98
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 15:22:09 -0500
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:42226)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <rms@HIDDEN>) id 1vN24g-0003eV-AR
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:47 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rms@HIDDEN>) id 1vN24W-0007F9-Qx
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:36 -0500
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rms@HIDDEN>) id 1vN24T-0004j7-It
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:33 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
 s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=Date:Subject:To:From:mime-version:in-reply-to:
 references; bh=UKZk8g8f9qGhS6zVuNSQ9osfRPC8X5FXcPplZ0FCdkY=; b=ZF6f0JN/tjOgbu
 XVFWfqoO2pK1upSEck2Ez+d9C4t8gZD8gic0lfqsCqcre/tPU8NTzrV8kgGErEMkuUUT04HdgCpBj
 6PE86PUcOCn0FoCcjQZqmWP0Uwr6sStw3DovXQ6MgJopwrwHBoJcn2BpQMUMN6i5tm0ezCPZHItx6
 zXvDro/1y87718oqpDxQAN4oO6y9XDPCNQ0NtDpfxzhkez36AHi5/PgpjfwRct2Hr2MBm6YqNBhB/
 etXOUsH80wlGQgZsUIr27y4ki5VAO5RnXI8bMFMpZtdZFlDzLR3OzWp7v4NuvEYq+oGp6TSPRnHMH
 CsxlnhY3QiqtuvbA74QQ==;
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <rms@HIDDEN>)
 id 1vN24P-0002xR-9W; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:29 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8
From: Richard Stallman <rms@HIDDEN>
To: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Subject: Package-install and package-update arguments
Message-Id: <E1vN24P-0002xR-9W@HIDDEN>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 23:51:29 -0500
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: rms@HIDDEN
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

[[[ 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. ]]]

I found it counterintuitive that package-install rejects as argument
the name of a locally installed package.  It seemed like a bug.

It would be much clearer to accept the argument and then report
(message "`%s' already installed" package-name)

Likewise for package-update.

-- 
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)





------------=_1766320203-934-1--

Last modified: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:30:02 UTC

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