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

Bug#157123: project: modify emacs policy

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 07:31:21PM -0400, D. Goel wrote:
> > You wouldn't be confusing the directories
> > /usr/share/emacs<version>/site-lisp/*, which contain the .elc files,
> > and the directories /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/*, which contain the
> > .el files, would you?
> Julian
> i do see now what you are saying.  This takes care of most of my
> complaints.  However, an important problem remains
> [1] It seems that, by default, /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/foo/ don't
> get added for most of the packages, whereas
> /usr/share/emacs21/site-lisp/foo does get added.   where foo
> represents the package. 
> Some examples of The packages where the former directory did not get
> added, for me are:
> erc <-- this one, i am sure of...  others are gleaned from lookign at
> load-path

No, this package *does* have a /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/erc/
directory in it.

> [2] IT is still not perfect to not have the .el files in the same
> place as .elc, (i know some stuff depends on that), but that is a
> minor issue, and i wil stop bugging you about that :)

If a particular package requires the .el files being in the same place
as the .elc files, and the package does not work because of that, you
should file a bug against that package.

See /usr/share/doc/emacsen-common/debian-emacs-policy.gz for an
explanation of why the system is set up in this way.  (Primarily
because the .elc files are emacs-version dependent, whereas the .el
files are usually not.)



      Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
              website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
     Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry

Reply to: