Ludovic Courtès (2016-05-17 00:15 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > >> Federico Beffa (2016-05-09 09:42 +0300) wrote: >> >>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> 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 think that’s a reasonable concern, and probably a sufficient reason > for the status quo. > > WDYT? As I said I see "guix.d" as an extra (and unnecessary) layer in the file hierarchy, so I don't like it. -- Alex
