Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)
- To: Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Bug#61167: emacsen-common: major bug in policy (not RC for potato)
- From: Rob Browning <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 21 May 2001 14:07:21 -0500
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20010402115358.A29457@polya> <email@example.com> <20010402165938.A29800@polya> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20010416023611.A29393@polya> <email@example.com>
Rob Browning <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> What would be the advantage to two directories? I guess it would be
> less confusing. I'm wondering if there would be any drawback, though.
> Maybe packages accidentally putting files in 20.X/site-lisp rather
> than emacs20/site-lisp, though I guess that would just be a bug in the
> packages similar to the one we already have.
> Anyone else have a reason to prefer one of these solutions over the
Unless someone has a compelling reason arguing against this, I'm going
to just change emacsen-policy to mandate that each emacsen should make
the version specific dir, i.e.
be a symlink to the flavor dir, i.e.
This seems simplest, doesn't present any serious problems that I can
see, and is certainly better than the current arrangement, but let me
know if you think I'm mistaken.
Rob Browning <email@example.com> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930