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

[Federico Beffa]

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Federico Beffa <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Alex Kost <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Federico Beffa (2016-05-08 19:23 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Alex Kost <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> I should have asked this when emacs-build-system was introduced.  Why
>>>> does it put emacs packages in sub-directories of
>>>> "/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d"?  It looks more natural to me just to
>>>> use "/share/emacs/site-lisp".
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any potential conflicts here: some packages will put their
>>>> elisp files right in the site-lisp dir (gnu-build-system does it by
>>>> default), and emacs-build-system can just use
>>>> "/share/emacs/site-lisp/<package>" sub-directories.
>>>>
>>>> "guix.d" seems redundant to me.  What do people think?
>>>
>>> Answer here:
>>>
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-06/msg00398.html
>>
>> No it is not :-)  I think you miss-understood my point.
>>
>> You said that we should put emacs packages into subdirectories, and I
>> agree with this, but instead of the current:
>>
>>   ".../site-lisp/guix.d/PACKAGE-NAME-VERSION/"
>>
>> I suggest to use:
>>
>>   ".../site-lisp/PACKAGE-NAME-VERSION/"
>>
>> i.e., to remove "guix.d".

OK, indeed I did misunderstood.

"guix.d" was added for the following reasons.

* There are some packages generating sub-directories. If one of those
packages is not installed with the 'emacs-build-system', say because
it provides configure/make scripts, then it may not be obvious which
directory to add to the path in an automatic way. With "guix.d" you
just add one layer down into each sub-directory.

* 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.

I'm therefore in favor of keeping "guix.d".

Fede