On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> wrote: > John Hendy writes: >> Could you elaborate on this? I'd always thought the exact opposite due >> to being burned in the past by stale junk littered around /usr/lib, >> /usr/bin, /usr/local/[bin/sbin]. Thus, for some things, I prefer to >> run them from the git repository since I know where they'll be vs. >> where `make install` might desire to put them. > > Git provides and manages the source tree and nothing else. To get a > reliable Org you need a self-consistent and complete installation — that > is usually provided by the build system. >
I'm with you so far. But if all of Org lives in /path/to/org.git/lisp, what's to go wrong if it's there vs. /system/path/site-lisp? > http://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-build-system.html > > The most logical place for that Org installation is site-lisp (since > then load-path is already set up correctly), but you can install almost > anywhere as long as you know where load-path is pointing to at all > times. You could then have multiple versions of Org installed and use > them for different instances or versiosn of Emacs (one at a time, > obviously). > >> What happens, for example, in this situation: >> - git clone >> - make && make install > > You just need to "make install" and it's been that way for over two > years now… > Sorry, I never do make install, so that was an oversight. >> - some file.el gets moved from org.git/contrib/lisp to org.git/lisp in master >> - git pull >> - make && make install > > And this is what "make up2" is doing, plus testing so the install won't > be attempted if the tests don't pass. > >> Are there now two copies of file.el somewhere in the system? > > No, unless you've changed the install location inbetween. If a file > would be removed (or renamed), then you'd need to first issue a "make > clean-install" to make sure it is really gone from your installation. > I'm not sure I follow this one. Does `make up2` look for changed paths (contrib/lisp vs lisp/) since the last `make up2` ? If not, how would I know to do `make clean-install` vs. just `make install`? >> Anyway, if there's more to read on some of your situations, I'd love >> to know as I've been doing exactly that and want to stop if it's >> recommended against! Thanks for mentioning the potential risk, as I >> had no idea! > > I'm not exactly sure what problem you are talking about, maybe you could > clarify. In any case it seems there's been a mixup of different problems > in this thread. I'm talking about your original comment that running out of a git repo can lead to: - it being just to easy to mess up with the autoloads - have stale byte-compiled files I forgot about somewhere John P.S. And yes, I derailed from the mixed install case due to your comment as I thought it was worth looking into. I'm doing what you advise against and I wanted to know the risks and more details about what I might run into. > > > Regards, > Achim. > -- > +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ > > Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf rackAttack: > http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds > >
