Re: Why do we use ".../share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d/"?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Alex Kost <address@hidden> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès (2016-05-17 00:15 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Alex Kost <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> Federico Beffa (2016-05-09 09:42 +0300) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Alex Kost <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> * 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… 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!
>>
>> Let’s make sure we understand each other before we vote.  :-)
>
> I think I understand your (I mean Federico and you) point.
>
>> Federico suggests above that having “guix.d” makes it clear that a
>> non-Guix-installed Emacs on a foreign distro may not be able to use
>> those packages.
>
> I don't see how this makes it more clear.  Of course a
> non-Guix-installed Emacs knows nothing about packages installed in a
> Guix profile.  As for me, "~/.guix-profile" is already clear enough, and
> there is no reason to add another "guix"-containing name part to the
> file hierarchy.

I see, I get your point, and I think I concur.

Federico: is there anything we’re missing from your argument?

Thanks,
Ludo’.