> From: Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> > Cc: godek.mac...@gmail.com, guile-user@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 17:42:27 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> writes: > > >> From: Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> > >> Cc: godek.mac...@gmail.com, guile-user@gnu.org > >> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 15:56:53 -0400 > >> > >> Remember that Guile is a library, not just an executable. So argv[0] > >> could point to any arbitrary executable that's linked with libguile. > > > > We can provide an API for passing to the library the root of its > > installation. > > I suppose, but that assumes that the main program knows the location of > the libguile installation it's linked to. How would it know this?
We are talking about the situation where libguile is _not_ installed in the usual places. Why would a program _not_ know where that is? > > And btw, how is this different from GCC looking for its libgcc or GDB > > looking for its Python scripts? > > GCC and GDB are programs, not libraries. Finding out the location of > the current executable is a much easier problem than finding out the > install prefix of a particular library. The issue is how to find the auxiliary files _given_ the location of the executable, not how to find where the executable itself lives. > > And when it doesn't work, we didn't lose anything, we are just back to > > where we are now, right? > > I disagree. If we advertise a new feature that cannot work without > making dubious assumptions, then we're making promises we can't keep. > That's a step in the wrong direction, IMO. My turn to disagree.
