From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: The load path Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 15:21:52 -0600 Message-ID: <87wtwyk70v.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> 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=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1099776142 27027 80.91.229.6 (6 Nov 2004 21:22:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:22:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Marius Vollmer , guile-devel , Greg Troxel Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 06 22:22:08 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 1CQY0e-0003Of-00 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:22:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQY8u-0004So-Ng for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:30:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CQY8s-0004SZ-I6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:30:38 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CQY8s-0004SN-4W for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:30:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQY8s-0004SK-0w for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:30:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [66.93.216.237] (helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CQY0Q-00035G-O2 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:21:55 -0500 Original-Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (omen.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.1]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4596740D4; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 15:21:53 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B6434410AB; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 15:21:52 -0600 (CST) Original-To: Neil Jerram In-Reply-To: <418D0EAE.40703@ossau.uklinux.net> (Neil Jerram's message of "Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:49:34 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) 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:4355 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:4355 Neil Jerram writes: > Yes, I understood that; I'm currently inclined against the proposal. See my recent reply to Paul. After some thinking, I'm similarly inclined. > - 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). Agreed, with the one caveat that until/unless we end up with some better module versioning support, we may need a bit of policy, at least within distributions that support multiple installed versions of Guile. Imagine there's a guile add-on module package foo. Also imagine that it works fine with guile-1.6 and guile-1.8, but not guile-2.0. It needs to be able to arrange for itself to be available via (use-modules (foo)) in the first two cases, but not in the last. One easy way to do that with the current system would be to just tell the add-on packages to put their files elsewhere (say /usr/share/foo) and then set up the right symlinks during installation: /usr/share/guile/1.6/foo -> ../../foo /usr/share/guile/1.8/foo -> ../../foo Of course Guile still needs better support for multiple installed versions, presuming we're interested in such support upstream (bin/* in particular). Otherwise, I can continue to just work on that in Debian. > In my view, relying on the ordering of load path components is the > way of madness (except in the particular-user-experimenting mode, > where a user prepends their own directory to the load path in order > to experiment), and it would be far better to agree guidelines for > unique module names, and to work out a solution for module > versioning. I agree completely. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel