Re: Easy configuration of a site-lisp directory

[Arthur Miller]

dick <dick.r.chiang@gmail.com> writes:

> CP> On a typical install Emacs takes you to the .el.gz, not to the .el in the
> CP> original repo; whereas for C files in takes you to the original repo.
> CP> That's what I meant by "work".
>
> I hear you, but emacs would have to be telepathic to know that you wanted to
> jump to your "working copy" .el's instead of the "installed copy" .el.gz's.
>
> This is why true believers only ever run emacs from their git clone.  Running
> the emacs executable from one's PATH or, to return to the original thread 
> regarding
> straight.el, running package code from the default package-user-dir, is purely
> for normies (among whom I am proud to number).

To return to this discussion about straight and package and git, I have
been myself thinking of using git repos as default install for packages,
since not so many people recently seem to care about packaging for
either melpa nor elpa. That is why I was looking at straight, quelpa and
borg. I haven't been aware of your elpaso.

However, I am not yet convinced it is so desirable to run Emacs from
development sources? I understand the idea, but if you work on
something, need to hack to hack som fast fix etc, try out something etc,
I would always have to be aware to make branch, do change, etc so I can
pull form origin to update etc. I haven't setuped yet anything, but I
was thinking of having two different places, one for installation and
one for working git clone.

Also, do you fork everything on a service like github or gitlab, or you
clone directly to the drive from other people's public repos?

Currently I jsut have one lisp directory for which I generate autoloads
and have that dir in path, similar as what Philip has suggested, and I just
copy any lisp files I wish to use, not packages for a package.el to that
dir.