On 30 May 2013 19:20, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 18:56:10 +0100 > > From: Richard Copley > > Cc: 14513@debbugs.gnu.org > > > > What used sometimes to be called NT Emacs is (or was) a portable app. > > When you've unpacked (or built) it, everything is inside "bin/..". > > Call that the "application directory". You install by moving and > > renaming the application directory, and uninstall by deleting. > > Ideally, you never modify any file inside the application directory. > > Putting an Emacs bin directory on the system-wide path is optional. > > The user can be trusted to work out how to invoke the right executable. > > Emacs finds the right auxiliary executables and DOC file just fine, > > even with the "-Q" command-line argument. > > This is all still true, Oh no it isn't. except that some of the directories are not > immediately below the root of the installation tree, but somewhat > deeper. E.g., what was previously in ROOT/lisp is now in > ROOT/share/emacs/VERSION/lisp. Why is that difference important? > That difference is not important. > I had a bunch of these application directories, my own builds of the > > trunk, at different revisions. Like this (but with more Emacs): > > > > c:\>dir /B c:\emacs > > emacs-111818 > > emacs-112125 > > emacs-112416 > > site-lisp > > You can still have separate directories like that, unless I'm missing > something. The directory structure below emacs-NNNNNN directories > will be different, but that's all. > Also the site-lisp directory will not be on the load-path. > > This particular arrangement was suggested, to my mind anyway, by > > the existence of the "%emacs_dir%/../site-lisp" entry in load-path. > > Did you really have files in "%emacs_dir%/../site-lisp"? Yes, that site-lisp directory up there is where my site lisp files are, really. > If you did, > you'd probably be the first one I know about who did. Most people > don't even know that directory is looked in. > If you say so. I'm the freak who looked at load-path. :P If you do have files in this directory, you'll have to copy them into > each new tree, if you really want the threes to be separate, not under > a single root. That seems like a disadvantage. > But you'll probably need that anyway, because Lisp > files had better be compiled by the Emacs version that runs them. > That's a fair point. I've never had a problem but it would be easy enough to recompile as necessary. I'm not actively using more than one build. > I don't say it's impossible to do the same thing any more, just that > > it no longer works out of the box as it used to > > What exactly doesn't work? Uninstalling by removing a single tree? > Or something else? > The site-lisp directory is not searched. > If that's uninstalling, and you don't want or cannot "make uninstall". It's funny how differently we work! I can't make uninstall because I kept the installation directory and discarded the build directory. > it should be easy to create a simple script that, given a root > directory and a version, will delete the subdirectories that belong to > that version only. There aren't too many directories to delete, > basically libexec/emacs/VERSION and share/emacs/VERSION. That, and > the emacs-VERSION*.exe executables in bin/. > > Did I miss something? > With the uninstallation? No idea. It's ok, there's no way I'll be doing that. > > If, as you say, it's a design decision, then that's fine. I disagree > > but I don't object. > > The new structure has advantages which I described in that mail in > March. > (1) You're the first one I know about who thinks that's important. (2) is wrong. (3) I don't follow. Other platforms, really?