From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Kost Subject: Re: Why do we use ".../share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d/"? Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 12:13:33 +0300 Message-ID: <87lh3joapu.fsf@gmail.com> References: <878tzkhmah.fsf@gmail.com> <871t5cwcpd.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35817) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1azhFy-0002Mc-T0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 May 2016 05:13:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1azhFw-0003h7-3T for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 May 2016 05:13:38 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::22d]:33997) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1azhFv-0003gv-RL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 May 2016 05:13:36 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id m64so192594061lfd.1 for ; Mon, 09 May 2016 02:13:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Federico Beffa's message of "Mon, 9 May 2016 08:42:51 +0200") 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" To: Federico Beffa Cc: Guix-devel Federico Beffa (2016-05-09 09:42 +0300) wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Alex Kost wrote: > >> You said that we should put emacs packages into subdirectories, and I >> agree with this, but instead of the current: >> >> ".../site-lisp/guix.d/PACKAGE-NAME-VERSION/" >> >> I suggest to use: >> >> ".../site-lisp/PACKAGE-NAME-VERSION/" >> >> i.e., to remove "guix.d". > > OK, indeed I did misunderstood. > > "guix.d" was added for the following reasons. > > * There are some packages generating sub-directories. If one of those > packages is not installed with the 'emacs-build-system', say because > it provides configure/make scripts, then it may not be obvious which > directory to add to the path in an automatic way. With "guix.d" you > just add one layer down into each sub-directory. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Sub-directories like "site-lisp/guix.d//foo/"? Why can't it be just "site-lisp//foo/". Could you give an example? > * It also makes it obvious that packages into that directory are > installed in a guix specific way. Therefore, if you try to use them > with an emacs from a foreign distro, you know that you have to do > something to make them work. You don't have to do anything to make them work if you use emacs from Guix. Also I don't think that making it obvious that this is a guix specific directory is needed. Moreover it may be confusing (see [1]). I would wonder why there is this an additional layer in elisp hierarchy, and I actually wonder=E2=80=A6 I mean I don't like it. > I'm therefore in favor of keeping "guix.d". OK, I see. So it's 1 for keeping "guix.d" part and 1 for removing it. Please people give your opinions! [1] https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-05-07#T1022796 P.S. I'm very sorry for this stupid and not funny joke, but let's "improve" the current situation by adding more levels to the file hierarchy: .../share/emacs/site-lisp/this/is/a-guix-specific/directory/ --=20 Alex-the-hooligan