Re: Should directory of unvompiled elisp file be added to load-path

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:32:29 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> said: 

> Hi all, I wondering about load-path bloat and whether it matters.

> http://bugs.debian.org/189754 said that when help was listed about a
> function of mine, the user couldn't click on the function name to
> move point to the source code.



> That's because I add the compiled lisp directory to to load-path,
> but not the directory of the sources themselves.

	I add both; the compiled ones at the front of the laod path,
 and the sources at the tail, like so:
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
 (if (fboundp 'debian-pkg-add-load-path-item)
     (setq load-path (debian-pkg-add-load-path-item (concat "/usr/share/"
                                            (symbol-name 
                                             debian-emacs-flavor)
                                            "/site-lisp/gnus")))
   (setq load-path (cons (concat "/usr/share/"
                                 (symbol-name debian-emacs-flavor)
                                 "/site-lisp/gnus") load-path)))
 ;; Make sure that the uncompiled files are also in the
 ;; laod-path, though near the end.
 (setq load-path (nconc load-path 
                        (list "/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/gnus/lisp")))
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


	I see no reason to bloat the archives with yet another -el
 package, especially since the packages ship with all the
 required .el files anyway.

	manoj
-- 
Xerox does it again and again and again and ...
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C