Re: Emacs per-package startup files
eichin@kitten.gen.ma.us writes ("Re: Emacs per-package startup files"):
> Umm, /usr/lib/emacs/site-lisp/ is already there, and already the right
> place for this sort of thing. Next question?
Err, I don't think so. Files in /usr/lib/emacs/site-lisp aren't
loaded automatically (and shouldn't be).
> As for ordering: use require, and then safe-append a section to
> /etc/site-start.el, JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ALREADY DOES... we don't need
> a new mechanism here, just some common simple automation of the one
> that vm, w3, gnats, and others already use...
Respectfully, I disagree.
Experience with /usr/info/dir, inetd.conf, and indeed with
site-start.el (/etc/site-start.el vs. site-lisp/site-start.el and
symlinks, &c) has taught us, I feel, that it is a bad thing to have
many different packages all dynamically update the same file just to
add and remove their own little bits from it.
Contrast this with /etc/rc?.d and /etc/rc.boot, where there has been
little unfortunate interaction.
There's the question of how to distinguish changes made to the shared
file by the sysadmin from those made by package maintainer scripts.
This is much easier if each package's bit is in a separate file -
dpkg's conffiles mechanism can take care of it.
There's also the question of having a standard tool. Obviously it
would be good to have a standard tool for this kind of thing (a la
install-mime and the rest). However, the more you do this the more
of these little install-foo scripts you have, and the more stuff you
drag in when you try to install the package. For example, supposing
Emacs were to provide a script to add things automatically I couldn't
use it, because dpkg can't depend on Emacs. The script would have to
end up in dpkg itself.
So, all in all, I think it would be better to have an arrangement
where all the bits that packages would want to put in the site-start
are installed as conffiles in a directory, and arrange that the real
site-start runs every file in the directory a la run-parts.
As for ordering: the entries in site-start aren't supposed to require
much ordering. After all, they're autoload definitions and the like.
I think a sequence numbering scheme like that for the other
package-put-a-file-in-here directories would be quite adequate.
Now Emacs is your (Mark Eichin's) package, so you get to decide how
things are to be done. I still hope though that I (and others who may
agree with me) can persuade you that these arguments have merit, and
that it would be better and simpler in the long run if we started
making this not particularly arduous transition.
Either way I'd appreciate it if, when this discussion is concluded,
you could send me some text for the new policy manual about how elisp
should be managed.
Thanks,
Ian.
Reply to: