Re: package.el: bytecode portability across emacs versions

[Trent Buck]

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:10:47PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> "Trent Buck" <address@hidden> writes:
> > Recommendation: either 0) tell users not to run more than one emacs;
> > 1) don't byte-compile; or 2) place bytecode in path(s) local to the
> > current emacs-version.
> >
> > Debian's elisp package framework adopts (2), that might be a source of
> > inspiration.
> 
> Debian's Elisp package framework socks boulders through straws.  Emacs
> is designed to have Elisp and elc files in the same directory.  That's
> how load-path orders can take effect.  Debian completely breaks this,
> as witnessed by calling M-x list-load-path-shadows RET.  And, of
> course, things like M-x byte-recompile-directory RET don't work in
> Debian, either.

Forgive me, I did not know.

> > package.el appears to create bytecode in a common directory.
> 
> It creates the bytecode in the directory where the source Elisp files
> lie, I would presume.

Correct.

> > Unless code is carefully audited, any time .emacs.d is shared
> > between multiple emacsen packages errors can be expected.
> 
> Sharing such a directory is a mistake, anyway.
>
> [...]
>
> Sharing Elisp files between different Emacs variants is not a good
> idea.

OK, so what file system do you think package.el should use?  Or is it
also a bad idea to share $HOME across hosts running different Emacs
releases?
-- 
Trent Buck

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature