Re: Why do we use ".../share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d/"?

[Alex Kost]

Ludovic Courtès (2016-05-17 00:15 +0300) wrote:

> Alex Kost <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Federico Beffa (2016-05-09 09:42 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Alex Kost <address@hidden> 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 think that’s a reasonable concern, and probably a sufficient reason
> for the status quo.
>
> WDYT?

As I said I see "guix.d" as an extra (and unnecessary) layer in the file
hierarchy, so I don't like it.

-- 
Alex