[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line.
From: |
R. Clayton |
Subject: |
Re: byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line. |
Date: |
Tue, 31 Dec 2013 21:52:03 -0500 |
Then just try to add all missing extra paths to directories with local Emacs
Lisp additions to load-path in the system-wide init file, site-start.el. I
think in batch mode this file is loaded because 'emacs --help' tells that
--batch works like -q or --no-init-file.
When you launch GNU Emacs with -Q you can check the compile-time value of
load-path. I think in any of these directories you can create the
site-run-file. Then determine the missing paths - if you haven't done yet -
and move from your personal init file the lines which extend load-path to the
site-run-file!
Ah, I see. Thanks for your comments.
- byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line., R. Clayton, 2013/12/28
- Re: byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line., R. Clayton, 2013/12/29
- Re: byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line., Eli Zaretskii, 2013/12/29
- Re: byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line., R. Clayton, 2013/12/30
- Re: byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line., Thierry Volpiatto, 2013/12/30
- Re: byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line., Peter Dyballa, 2013/12/30
- Re: byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line., R. Clayton, 2013/12/30
- Re: byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line., Peter Dyballa, 2013/12/30
- Re: byte-compile-file: emacs vs the command line.,
R. Clayton <=