[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Modified load-path proposal
From: |
Andreas Rottmann |
Subject: |
Re: Modified load-path proposal |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Oct 2005 03:28:23 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
Greg Troxel <address@hidden> writes:
> Yes it does (I think). If that's what you want, you just write your
> Makefile.am like this ...
>
> scmdatadir = $(datadir)/guile
> scmdata_DATA = whatever1.scm whatever2.scm
>
> ... and add an extra install step (for which I forget the syntax)
> that does
>
> guile-config add-load-path mydata $(datadir)/guile "My Location"
>
> Am I still missing something?
>
> No, you're not - that's just fine, and would be IMHO the 'standard
> way' to do things, or at least one of two ways, with the other
> probably being putting stuff in $(guile-prefix)/share/guile.
>
I strongly support making this the default/standard way, too. I'd be
highly annoyed (well, that's an understatement ;)) if a "./configure
&& make && sudo make install" of some package would put files under
/usr just because guile happens to be installed there.
--
Andreas Rottmann | address@hidden | address@hidden | address@hidden
http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62
v2sw7MYChw5pr5OFma7u7Lw2m5g/l7Di6e6t5BSb7en6g3/5HZa2Xs6MSr1/2p7 hackerkey.com
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself couldn't eat it?
- Homer S.
- Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/13
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Greg Troxel, 2005/10/13
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/13
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Kevin Ryde, 2005/10/22
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/28
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/30
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2005/10/30
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/30
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2005/10/31
- Re: Modified load-path proposal, Neil Jerram, 2005/10/31