Re: emacs-29 9b775ddc057 1/2: ; * etc/EGLOT-NEWS: Fix wording of last change.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 12:43:36 +0300
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,
>  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>
> 
> On 11/05/2023 10:26, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> > Dmitry Gutov<dmitry@gutov.dev>  writes:
> > 
> >> On 10/05/2023 14:03, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> >>> I noticed a bug, here is a revised version:
> >> Should package-upgrade-all have a similar adjustment?
> > Why not?  Didn't you have a patch that extended
> > `package--upgradeable-packages' by an optional argument, we could use
> > that here an just pass `package-install-upgrade-built-in'.
> 
> I'd be happy to see commit 53cc61d60db backported from master.

Sorry, no, not in Emacs 29.1.

> Not crazy about the idea of adding a prefix argument to package-upgrade, 
> though.

Yes, I know.  I'm not crazy either, but this issue should have been
raised many moons earlier that it has been, and then we'd have a
potentially better solution.  As things are, we have no better choice
but go forward a half-step.