From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: The load path Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:43:52 +0200 Message-ID: <1100112232.3368.19.camel@localhost> References: <1097949129.4178.31.camel@localhost> <418C126D.5010802@ossau.uklinux.net> <87u0s3r30n.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <418D0EAE.40703@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1100157796 20142 80.91.229.6 (11 Nov 2004 07:23:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:23:16 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 11 08:22:58 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CS9II-000488-00 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:22:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CS9Qm-0006R3-Ch for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:31:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CS9Qh-0006Qx-Ic for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:31:40 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CS9Qg-0006Ql-OM for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:31:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CS9Qg-0006Qi-EP for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:31:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [216.166.232.203] (helo=johnson-resources.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1CS9Hx-0003G3-MF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:22:37 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (mantis.schoolnet.na [::ffff:196.44.140.238]) (AUTH: LOGIN wingo) by johnson-resources.com with esmtp; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:22:02 -0500 id 001201C3.4193132D.00006AE6 Original-Received: from wingo by localhost with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CRxS0-00059f-00 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:44:12 +0200 Original-To: guile-devel In-Reply-To: <418D0EAE.40703@ossau.uklinux.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.1 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:4371 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:4371 Hey folks, Nice discussion. Sorry I was off the net for most of this. I'm replying to Neil's mail because his POV represents the consensus, it seems. There is one issue that still needs to be addressed. On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 17:49 +0000, Neil Jerram wrote: > - Note that there is no need for a distribution mechanism to include > /usr/local in the %load-path, system-wide, because the distribution does > not use /usr/local. If the sysadmin knows that the machine also > contains non-distribution-managed software in /usr/local, he/she can of > course add /usr/local to the load path in init.scm. If a particular > user wants /usr/local, he/she can extend the load path in their .guile. I disagree. When a user downloads an app, builds it and installs it, they should be able to run it. On all configure scripts that I know of, /usr/local is the default prefix. This is fine for C code: the compiler will pick up headers, libs, and binaries from /usr/local, even if the compiler comes from the distribution. Why should guile be any different? Or to take your argument to its conclusion, why include /usr/share/guile/site in the load path? After all, the distro won't put anything there. This is a bigger problem with libraries than apps, because apps can munge the load path as appropriate. Anyway, I hope I have convinced you of the bug report-hell lib and app authors will get if the default install path isn't in the default guile load path :) [reordered] > - The set of %load-path directories is a distribution decision, not a > per-package decision. In general, I think applications should be > strongly encouraged to install their Scheme code in one of the > distribution-wide %load-path locations, not in some application-specific > directory (which would then need to be added to %load-path). Even for modules implementing functionality of an app, that aren't part of its public interface? My instinct is to hide them, because then I know they won't cause me problems in the future if someone uses them somehow. > - There is a handful of meta-packages (e.g. KDE, Gnome) that are so > big that it might make sense for them to have their own %load-path > location. I'll write another email about this, it's a bigger topic. Cheers, -- Andy Wingo http://ambient.2y.net/wingo/ _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel