guile-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The load path


From: Neil Jerram
Subject: Re: The load path
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:31:08 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3

Andy Wingo wrote:

I disagree. When a user downloads an app, builds it and installs it,
they should be able to run it. On all configure scripts that I know
of, /usr/local is the default prefix. This is fine for C code: the
compiler will pick up headers, libs, and binaries from /usr/local, even
if the compiler comes from the distribution. Why should guile be any
different? Or to take your argument to its conclusion, why
include /usr/share/guile/site in the load path? After all, the distro
won't put anything there.
I agree: when Guile is built and installed using "configure; make; make install", the default load path should certainly include /usr/local. That's not quite what I was addressing though; I was talking about the case where everything on a machine is there through package management - in this case /usr/local isn't needed because there isn't anything in /usr/local.

My thinking was, that as soon as you have a user who is prepared to do "configure; ...", you have a user who can edit init.scm to add any load path that isn't already there. (E.g. the case where Guile is installed as a package, so is in /usr, but the user builds and installs an add-on .tar.gz themselves in /usr/local.)

Even for modules implementing functionality of an app, that aren't part
of its public interface?

Yes, absolutely!

My instinct is to hide them, because then I
know they won't cause me problems in the future if someone uses them
somehow.
But surely "using them somehow" is what Free Software is all about?

Regards,
   Neil






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]