GNU bug report logs - #79881
Package-install and package-update arguments

Please note: This is a static page, with minimal formatting, updated once a day.
Click here to see this page with the latest information and nicer formatting.

Package: emacs; Reported by: rms@HIDDEN; Done: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>; Maintainer for emacs is bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN.

Message received at 79881-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org:

Received: (at 79881-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Dec 2025 12:29:13 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sun Dec 21 07:29:13 2025
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

Notification sent to rms@HIDDEN:
bug acknowledged by developer. Full text available.

Reply sent to Philip Kaludercic <philipk@HIDDEN>:
You have taken responsibility. Full text available.