From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: Problems with downloading from https Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:43:48 -0400 Message-ID: <87fve9po7v.fsf@yeeloong.lan> References: <877fzogiq5.fsf@gmail.com> <20141025200250.675.55930@vulcan.local.tld> <87y4s348k1.fsf@gmail.com> <87fveboseq.fsf@gnu.org> <87k33m4ob9.fsf@gmail.com> <87vbn6h7f4.fsf@gnu.org> <87oasxj2z1.fsf@netris.org> <87ioj566pv.fsf@gnu.org> <8761f5zlph.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47800) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XilXQ-00060b-Cu for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:44:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XilXK-00089v-HW for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:44:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8761f5zlph.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:27:54 +0300") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Kost writes: > Why not just allow gnutls and other packages to install guile modules in > a site dir (without version) and to augment GUILE_LOAD_PATH with it as I > suggested at > ? In my opinion, this is the right fix. There is plenty of Guile code that works on both Guile 1.8 and Guile 2.0, so there's no need to put Scheme modules in versioned directories. We provide 'cond-expand' when it's really needed, after all. Guile 2 puts both "site/2.0" and "site" in its load path by default, which signals to developers that they can choose either location. Furthermore, if changing the installation directory of the GnuTLS modules broke Guix, there's a non-trivial possibility that we might break something else. Please, let's leave the GnuTLS modules where they are, and add "site" to the search-path-specification, as Alex suggests. What do you think? Mark