Kevin Ryde <use...@zip.com.au> writes:
> Rob Browning <r...@defaultvalue.org> writes:
>>
>> investigate our load-path handling more carefully, perhaps even more so,
>> given that Emacs has changed its behavior over the past couple of major
>> releases -- but I also think that it's probably not something that we
>> should attempt right now, this close to a release.
>
> Ok. If took away the 24.2/site-lisp symlink as thought in the policy
> then I suppose the load-path would be cleaned up.
I suspect we need to keep the symlink, unless we want to deal with the
possiblity of having to "fix" a lot of other things (add-ons, etc.).
Here's one bit of rationale from emacs/debian/rules:
# The version-specific site-lisp dir, say emacs/21.1/site-lisp, needs
# to be in share/FLAVOR so that as we upgrade from 21.1 to 21.2,
# etc., add-on package bits don't get left behind.
mv $(pkgdir_common)/usr/share/emacs/$(runtime_ver)/site-lisp \
$(pkgdir_common)/usr/share/$(flavor)
dh_link -p$(flavor)-common usr/share/$(flavor)/site-lisp \
usr/share/emacs/$(runtime_ver)/site-lisp
The symlink was added originally b/c without it, we ended up with a lot
of dangling X.Y directories.
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
