From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Federico Beffa Subject: Re: emacs packages Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:30:19 +0200 Message-ID: References: <878ubjskwj.fsf@gnu.org> <87twu3x5ds.fsf@gnu.org> <87381kojei.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:48236) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6wBU-0001mv-Fk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 03:30:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6wBQ-0008Kf-9V for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 03:30:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87381kojei.fsf@gnu.org> 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: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: Guix-devel On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote= : > Federico Beffa skribis: > >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wro= te: >>>>> guix.el already takes care of that (info "(guix) Emacs Initial Setup"= ), >>>>> so that should be enough. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately this doesn't work without modification. The reason is >>>> that I follow the emacs package.el strategy to install each ELPA >>>> package in it's own sub-directory. Specifically, I'm installing each >>>> package into ".../site-lisp/guix.d/PACKAGE-NAME-VERSION/". The code >>>> in 'guix.el', however, doesn't look in sub-directories below the >>>> profile's '.../site-lisp'. >>> >>> What does it bring us to follow package.el=E2=80=99s strategy? >>> >>> My impression is that we could simply follow what guix.el already does, >>> and thus avoid that guix.d/PACKAGE-VERSION sub-directory. Of course we >>> can adjust guix.el as we see fit, but package.el is a completely >>> separate beast anyway. Am I missing something? >> >> Hi Ludo, >> >> the reason for using separate sub-directories is that many packages >> include files, such as README, ChangeLog, ..., that are likely to >> clash. Even if we would delete all non ".el" files (which probably is >> not safe), with more than 2500 packages on MELPA, it is possible that >> we would still experience some name clashes. I can imagine that >> someone preparing a package may be unaware of the existence of some >> other package, possibly not very popular in his circle. > > What about copying all the .el files to .../site-lisp, and copy the > other files elsewhere (for instance, =E2=80=98README=E2=80=99 and =E2=80= =98ChangeLog=E2=80=99 to > share/doc/$PACKAGE, and .info files to share/info)? I am copying .info files to share/info. I'm not copying README files to share/doc because these usually do not provide useful documentation for the user and ChangeLog are usually not up-to-date relict. But if somebody feels strongly about it, I can change that. > > Note that name clashes in profiles are annoying, but not fatal. For .el files they are. I also do not think that it is very sane ending up with a flat directory including hundreds of files. Some hierarchy makes the organization much more apparent and clean. Regards, Fede