From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Greg Troxel Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Modified load-path proposal Date: 15 Oct 2005 11:03:35 -0400 Message-ID: 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 1129388706 17703 80.91.229.2 (15 Oct 2005 15:05:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:05:06 +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 17:05:02 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EQnZa-0005Av-VM for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:03:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EQnZa-0007re-4Z for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:03:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EQnZW-0007rO-1r for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:03:42 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EQnZU-0007rB-L8 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:03:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EQnZU-0007r8-GI for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:03:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.1.100.210] (helo=fnord.ir.bbn.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1EQnZU-0006eh-BY for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:03:40 -0400 Original-Received: by fnord.ir.bbn.com (Postfix, from userid 10853) id D839E5287; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: Neil Jerram In-Reply-To: <87ek6njah0.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> Original-Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 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:4850 Archived-At: 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. I, and I think Andreas, feel that putting stuff in a different prefix is somewhere between wrong and inelegant. Guile will have a way to reference code outside of it's prefix, so it will still be seamless, so the kludge of putting lisp code built with a prefix different from that of emacs in emacs' prefix isn't necessary. 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. -- Greg Troxel _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user