Re: Why do we use ".../share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d/"?

[Federico Beffa]

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Alex Kost <address@hidden> wrote:
> Federico Beffa (2016-05-08 19:23 +0300) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Alex Kost <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> I should have asked this when emacs-build-system was introduced.  Why
>>> does it put emacs packages in sub-directories of
>>> "/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d"?  It looks more natural to me just to
>>> use "/share/emacs/site-lisp".
>>>
>>> I don't see any potential conflicts here: some packages will put their
>>> elisp files right in the site-lisp dir (gnu-build-system does it by
>>> default), and emacs-build-system can just use
>>> "/share/emacs/site-lisp/<package>" sub-directories.
>>>
>>> "guix.d" seems redundant to me.  What do people think?
>>
>> Answer here:
>>
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-06/msg00398.html
>
> No it is not :-)  I think you miss-understood my point.
>
> You said that we should put emacs packages into subdirectories, and I
> agree with this, but instead of the current:
>
>   ".../site-lisp/guix.d/PACKAGE-NAME-VERSION/"
>
> I suggest to use:
>
>   ".../site-lisp/PACKAGE-NAME-VERSION/"
>
> i.e., to remove "guix.d".

Yes, I understand your question and the answer is at the link I gave
you (and the remainder of the thread). Here pasted for you again:

"
the reason for using separate sub-directories is that many packages
include files, such as README, ChangeLog, ..., that are likely to
clash. Even if we would delete all non ".el" files (which probably is
not safe), with more than 2500 packages on MELPA, it is possible that
we would still experience some name clashes. I can imagine that
someone preparing a package may be unaware of the existence of some
other package, possibly not very popular in his circle.
"

For further discussions follow the mentioned thread.

Fede