[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#329114: Please don't shadow emacs-snapshot packages



Peter Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:

> 1- Perhaps if I don't explicitely add
>    /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/emacs-goodies-el/ to the load-path, it
>    will get added automatically at the tail end, because it is a
>    subdirectory of /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp ?

Nope, it won't be added automatically.

> 2- Perhaps emacs-snapshot can be modified to have it's generic load-path
>    all done by the time the /etc/emacs startup files are run.  That
>    way. add entries at the tail end of the load-path would indeed yield
>    the expected result.  For everybody.  Not just me.

Its load-path is already 'all done' by the time the Debian startup
scripts run, or things would break in horrible ways.

Your problem is that this code from debian-startup.el (in the
`debian-run-directories' function) stores the original load-path before
running the scripts and then explicitly overwrites load-path, adding any
items added by the Debian startup scripts at the head of the original
load-path:

,----
| ;; restore the old load-path -- including any new paths added by
| ;; files loaded in directory traversal.
| (let ((add-on-package-paths 
|        (delq nil (mapcar
|                   (lambda (item)
|                     (if (not (member item new-path))
|                         item
|                       nil))
|                   load-path))))      
|   (setq load-path (append add-on-package-paths old-load-path))))))
`----

This is why your site-lisp directory added at the end of the load-path
in emacs-goodies-el's startup script ends up being moved before the
system load path items after `debian-startup' returns.

So, we could try to fix emacsen-common by changing this code, or we
could try my (admittedly cumbersome) symlink solution...

Cheers,

-- 
  ,''`.
 : :' :        Romain Francoise <rfrancoise@debian.org>
 `. `'         http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
   `-



Reply to: