Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > 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 see, I get your point, and I think I concur. Federico: is there anything we’re missing from your argument? Thanks, Ludo’.
