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: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:00:26 +0000 Message-ID: <87k6e5ua8l.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> <87r7adf8h1.fsf@zip.com.au> <87vezhbknv.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87u0ey3mph.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <873bmf4ey4.fsf@laas.fr> <87y832l4af.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87irttpf2c.fsf@laas.fr> <87r78duc9d.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 1134695087 20670 80.91.229.2 (16 Dec 2005 01:04:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 16 02:04:46 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1En40K-0000w5-3T for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:03:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1En40y-00072Z-TA for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:04:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1En3zb-0006Ul-Hq for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:02:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1En3zZ-0006TN-Lw for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:02:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1En3zY-0006Sp-Qy for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:02:37 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1En41t-0000mL-JJ for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:05:01 -0500 Original-Received: from laruns (host86-129-132-201.range86-129.btcentralplus.com [86.129.132.201]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC05A409FA9 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:01:53 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D4B6F719 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:00:27 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: guile-user@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87r78duc9d.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> (Neil Jerram's message of "Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:16:46 +0000") 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:4994 Archived-At: Neil Jerram writes: > [... initialize-packages vs. config.scm approach ...] I just thought of one more argument that favours initialize-packages, namely that initialize-packages allows execution of arbitrary code to initialize a package (whereas config.scm would only modify %load-path), and that's bound to be useful sooner or later. One example is the (gnome-0) module that guile-gnome installs in /usr/share/guile/site, and which modifies %load-path (to point to the rest of the install under /usr/share/guile-gnome-0) and LD_LIBRARY_PATH. This unusual arrangement prevented me from loading guile-gnome at first, because I was using /usr/local/bin/guile, which doesn't have /usr/share/guile/site in its load path. If the stuff in (gnome-0) was instead installed under /etc/guile/packages, it would work in principle for both /usr/bin/guile and /usr/local/bin/guile. Then, if we allow that guile-gnome has to munge LD_LIBRARY_PATH in (gnome-0), i.e. outside of its main installed module tree, we have to go with the initialize-packages approach. In fact guile-gnome _doesn't_ have to do this, so its not an open and shut case. (It could move the LD_LIBRARY_PATH code to a module in the main tree, and make sure that this module is always used before any that depend on LD_LIBRARY_PATH.) But it makes sense to munge the load path and LD_LIBRARY_PATH in the same place, so I'd say this is a good argument for the initialize-packages approach and for allowing arbitrary code execution. Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user