bug#10208: site-lisp directories in load-path after --no-site-lisp

[ASSI]

Am 11.01.2012 02:08, schrieb Glenn Morris:
> Thanks for tracking this down, I installed something similar.

Appreciated, however I can't check right now.

> I had not appreciated half of what init_lread does, nor that
> installation-directory is actually nil in installed Emacs (and would be
> better named "build-directory" IMO).

Yes, this whole business of naming and using these variables might 
require something of an overhaul.

> AFAICS, there are still the following issues:
>
> i) EMACSLOADPATH overrides --no-site-lisp; it probably should not.

I haven't given this one much thought so far; but again, the general 
scheme might be in need of re-evaluation.

> ii) This presumably means --no-site-lisp does not work in --with-ns
> builds, since they set load-path via EMACSLOADPATH (IMO, it's a bug that
> one part of Emacs uses an env-var just to communicate with another, see eg
> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=6401#48 )
>
> These could both be solved by simply removing any Vload_path element
> matching "site-lisp" near the end of init_lread. (I guess this would
> remove the need for the MS Windows build to implement this feature
> separately as well.)

I don't have a build environment set up on Windows, so I can't comment here.

> This would still leave:
>
> iii) Any --enable-locallisppath element that does not happen to have
> "site-lisp" in its name will not get removed (but such elements already
> mess things up because they will break the sorting of load-path that
> init_lread tries to do).
>
>
> Perhaps it would be better to split PATH_LOADSEARCH in epaths.h into a
> default and site-lisp component, and simply not add the latter with
> --no-site-lisp.

I'd be in favor of having separate path variables.  The two searchpath 
components are already seperately available in make during the build, so 
it may not be even that difficult.  However, such a change might need to 
be postponed to the next release of Emacs.

> Finally, I noticed that you have some changes installed (for Org) that
> are not marked as "tiny changes", yet you don't seem to have a copyright
> assignment. IF you have not completed one, are you willing to do so?
> The process is straightforward.

I had sent you a mail last year regarding this, I'll send it again. 
Please let me know if you don't get it.


--
Achim.

(on the road :-)