[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Autoconf test for site scheme files

From: Jon Wilson
Subject: Re: Autoconf test for site scheme files
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:27:07 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20070604)

Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Mike Gran <address@hidden> writes:
This brings up another question.  Should %load-path should generally
include /usr/local/share/guile/site by default?

Arguments in favor: it would keep symmetry with the emacs $(lispdir)
directory as described in the GNU coding standards. [1] Philosophically, can something be "site"-specific and not be "local"?
OTOH, why have two `site' directories by default?
Using ubuntu, apt installs packages under /usr. When I find something that either isn't up to date enough or doesn't exist in the ubuntu repos, I build it from source. In that case, I either install to /opt or to /usr/local. Sometimes this includes packages which want to install guile modules (currently, it includes guile!). I try to keep /usr untouched except by apt, but it does make sense to have these modules in a `site' directory.

For instance, I have guile-lib installed from the ubuntu package to /usr/share/guile/site, and I have guile-gdbm installed to /usr/local/share/guile/site. I think this constitutes a pragmatic (although perhaps not good?) reason to have two site dirs.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]