From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53493) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eOoHm-0000yz-Oh for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:24:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eOoHi-0003Iv-Pr for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:24:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:50138) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eOoHi-0003Ii-Ld for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:24:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eOoHi-0005OF-Fh for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:24:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#28832] [PATCH 1/3] gnu: Add emacs-json-reformat. Resent-Message-ID: From: Alex Kost References: <87lgke3vlz.fsf@gmail.com> <20171014102915.11778-1-go.wigust@gmail.com> <87y3o6uheo.fsf@gnu.org> <87d13yiw6w.fsf@gnu.org> <87609cluzf.fsf@gmail.com> <87zi6os3u3.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:23:49 +0300 In-Reply-To: <87zi6os3u3.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:17:08 +0100") Message-ID: <87fu8famhm.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 28832@debbugs.gnu.org Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2017-12-12 10:17 +0100) wrote: > Oleg Pykhalov skribis: > >> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> >>> Besides, I wonder: shouldn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=98emacs-build-system=E2=80= =99 define the >>> =E2=80=98EMACSLOADPATH=E2=80=99 env. var. so we don=E2=80=99t have to c= arry all these -L flags? >>> Is there any downside? >> >> As I see from the documentation=C2=B9 EMACSLOADPATH is a list of directo= ries >> with *.el files in it. If we will use it, then it will be almost the >> same carring bunch of directories in package recipes, will it? > > If =E2=80=98emacs-build-system=E2=80=99 sets =E2=80=98EMACSLOADPATH=E2=80= =99 automatically, then > individual package definitions won=E2=80=99t need those -L flags. Dunno = if > there are good reasons not to do so. Maybe Alex has an opinion? I would rather ask Federico who wrote =E2=80=98emacs-build-system=E2=80=99 = :) Yeah, maybe =E2=80=98emacs-build-system=E2=80=99 could benefit from using E= MACSLOADPATH, I don't know, someone should probably give it a try ;-) BTW, Oleg, did you try to use 'ert-runner' instead of running emacs for tests manually? Perhaps, it will work; look at commit 8505d34829b99744a36d72dd583768f1e49210a6 for example. --=20 Alex