From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Modified load-path proposal Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:53:31 +0100 Message-ID: <87irvyis4k.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <878xwx5ld2.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87u0fl3wam.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87oe5s51l4.fsf@ivanova.rotty.yi.org> <87ek6njah0.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1129398908 13824 80.91.229.2 (15 Oct 2005 17:55:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:55:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Rottmann , guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 15 19:54:58 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EQqE1-0008W4-SB for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:53:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EQqE1-0000qk-9M for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:53:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EQqDw-0000qS-L3 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:53:36 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EQqDv-0000pd-4d for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:53:36 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EQqDu-0000pT-W8 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:53:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EQqDv-0007Wx-6I for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:53:35 -0400 Original-Received: from laruns (host81-139-127-30.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.139.127.30]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37214409FB3; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:53:34 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CBE6F6C4; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:53:31 +0100 (BST) Original-To: Greg Troxel In-Reply-To: (Greg Troxel's message of "15 Oct 2005 11:03:35 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:4853 Archived-At: Greg Troxel writes: > The mechanism I'm proposing is a bit more flexible than that, but the > basic idea in both cases is that the core distribution (either Emacs > or Guile) has a view on where it wants add-on packages to be installed > (and hence which may be different from the add-on package's $prefix). > > I think this is the crux of the disagreement. Yes, I agree (that this is the crux), but it's not in our control to force package authors to abide by this, even if we agreed to adopt this as policy. > So I'd like the core distribution to at least > be neutral on what the 'right' way is, and explain both > in-guile's-prefix and in-the-prefix-that-was-given methods. I'm happy with that. Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user