[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Modified load-path proposal
From: |
Neil Jerram |
Subject: |
Re: Modified load-path proposal |
Date: |
Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:53:31 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
Greg Troxel <address@hidden> writes:
> The mechanism I'm proposing is a bit more flexible than that, but the
> basic idea in both cases is that the core distribution (either Emacs
> or Guile) has a view on where it wants add-on packages to be installed
> (and hence which may be different from the add-on package's $prefix).
>
> I think this is the crux of the disagreement.
Yes, I agree (that this is the crux), but it's not in our control to
force package authors to abide by this, even if we agreed to adopt
this as policy.
> So I'd like the core distribution to at least
> be neutral on what the 'right' way is, and explain both
> in-guile's-prefix and in-the-prefix-that-was-given methods.
I'm happy with that.
Neil
- Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/13
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Greg Troxel, 2005/10/13
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/13
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Kevin Ryde, 2005/10/22
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/28
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/30
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2005/10/30
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/30
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2005/10/31
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/31
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Tomas Zerolo, 2005/10/31
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Kevin Ryde, 2005/10/30
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Tomas Zerolo, 2005/10/31