Federico Beffa (2016-05-09 09:42 +0300) wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Sub-directories like "site-lisp/guix.d/<package>/foo/"? Why can't it be just "site-lisp/<package>/foo/". Could you give an example? > * 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! [1] https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-05-07#T1022796 P.S. I'm very sorry for this stupid and not funny joke, but let's "improve" the current situation by adding more levels to the file hierarchy: .../share/emacs/site-lisp/this/is/a-guix-specific/directory/<package> -- Alex-the-hooligan
