From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Federico Beffa Subject: Re: emacs packages Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:06:17 +0200 Message-ID: References: <878ubjskwj.fsf@gnu.org> <87twu3x5ds.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]:53245) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5yo7-0001RJ-IV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:06:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5yo6-0007n5-Om for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:06:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87twu3x5ds.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 Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >>> 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. Regards, Fede