From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: The load path Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:31:08 +0000 Message-ID: <41952B9C.1020408@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <1097949129.4178.31.camel@localhost> <418C126D.5010802@ossau.uklinux.net> <87u0s3r30n.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <418D0EAE.40703@ossau.uklinux.net> <1100112232.3368.19.camel@localhost> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1100295189 29091 80.91.229.6 (12 Nov 2004 21:33:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:33:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 12 22:32:59 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 1CSj2R-0006vt-00 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:32:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSjB0-0007oc-Lh for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:41:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CSjAr-0007mR-Q3 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:41:41 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CSjAq-0007le-RO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:41:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSjAq-0007lU-Nn for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:41:40 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CSj2F-0003y8-R5 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:32:48 -0500 Original-Received: from laruns (host81-130-105-202.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.130.105.202]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D94D409FB6; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:32:46 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from ossau.uklinux.net (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F026FA21; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:31:08 +0000 (GMT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en Original-To: Andy Wingo In-Reply-To: <1100112232.3368.19.camel@localhost> 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:4379 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:4379 Andy Wingo wrote: >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. > > I agree: when Guile is built and installed using "configure; make; make install", the default load path should certainly include /usr/local. That's not quite what I was addressing though; I was talking about the case where everything on a machine is there through package management - in this case /usr/local isn't needed because there isn't anything in /usr/local. My thinking was, that as soon as you have a user who is prepared to do "configure; ...", you have a user who can edit init.scm to add any load path that isn't already there. (E.g. the case where Guile is installed as a package, so is in /usr, but the user builds and installs an add-on .tar.gz themselves in /usr/local.) >Even for modules implementing functionality of an app, that aren't part >of its public interface? > Yes, absolutely! > My instinct is to hide them, because then I >know they won't cause me problems in the future if someone uses them >somehow. > > But surely "using them somehow" is what Free Software is all about? Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel