From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Retrieving the "include" directory for Emacs Modules Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:41:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <86ttbcdhwn.fsf@gnu.org> <865xnscj0s.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37180"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Stefan Monnier via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor To: =?windows-1252?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Bidar Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 20 16:41:55 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1tOf8T-0009UW-NK for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 16:41:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOf80-0006BR-JS; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:41:24 -0500 Original-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 ) id 1tOf7t-00064V-ID for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:41:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOf7r-0003Ho-FW for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:41:17 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 622B5441845; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:41:12 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1734709271; bh=Z92R8YQlgErp9xQVifBIdiu5sdxqylE0u+3/nVsg6iA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Kekp9PVNCG0iI+UFb8rt36RflF2ttd5v5fyKLw3mr52rSIsyKJgcZQqOZBTUYgOJG n1L4oL0xXug0jDxGQz5Bz8L2ojktiAsJxN8yuhDYRkFtma21f1gK1ZDuiy2IcxNF1N DvhoYePqd/lQ6ddYPNtx1I4oehXWHOxS0HLhBIT1fkPGLGO0kCojUCnWiHgoN5TB0b x6TY8L/sGTRApRgB7SOoNMbTl2frGw5bHRAopTZpDBpFD/RZOIl6IRTZbgb1JUkbPO U0apa5l3/MX9YJJ5Sgf4vjGrtlQgTthby26JcDlbWutIaAWufN7QDZ8d2nvWPKm2iF Y2MUprtJ2sE+g== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6F84B44183F; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:41:11 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from asado (unknown [199.119.74.1]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DBCE12041A; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:41:11 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87ttazmdvc.fsf@> (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Bj=F6rn?= Bidar"'s message of "Fri, 20 Dec 2024 01:50:31 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:148897 Archived-At: >> That's OK: the sole purpose of the change is to let ELPA packages call >> `gcc` with such a `-I`! > Which is wrong for Unix-like systems except on macOS. In which sense would it be wrong? I can see an argument that such a `-I` would tend to be redundant on systems where Emacs was "installed properly", but even on those systems I fail to see what would be "wrong" about it. > It's debatable if packages should compile their native modules > themselves IME it's what most users expect when they install (via `package.el`) packages that come with a module, and it's also what most of the developers of those packages want to offer to their users. I have no intention to impose such an approach as the only supported way to install a module, but I don't see what's debatable about providing good support for packages to be able to compile their own modules. Stefan