On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Federico Beffa <be...@ieee.org> wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Federico Beffa (2016-05-08 19:23 +0300) wrote: >> >>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> 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
