[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [O] mixed orgmode installation

From: John Hendy
Subject: Re: [O] mixed orgmode installation
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 12:52:03 -0500

On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Achim Gratz <address@hidden> wrote:
> John Hendy writes:
>> Could you elaborate on this? I'd always thought the exact opposite due
>> to being burned in the past by stale junk littered around /usr/lib,
>> /usr/bin, /usr/local/[bin/sbin]. Thus, for some things, I prefer to
>> run them from the git repository since I know where they'll be vs.
>> where `make install` might desire to put them.
> Git provides and manages the source tree and nothing else.  To get a
> reliable Org you need a self-consistent and complete installation — that
> is usually provided by the build system.

I'm with you so far. But if all of Org lives in /path/to/org.git/lisp,
what's to go wrong if it's there vs. /system/path/site-lisp?

> http://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-build-system.html
> The most logical place for that Org installation is site-lisp (since
> then load-path is already set up correctly), but you can install almost
> anywhere as long as you know where load-path is pointing to at all
> times.  You could then have multiple versions of Org installed and use
> them for different instances or versiosn of Emacs (one at a time,
> obviously).
>> What happens, for example, in this situation:
>> - git clone
>> - make && make install
> You just need to "make install" and it's been that way for over two
> years now…

Sorry, I never do make install, so that was an oversight.

>> - some file.el gets moved from org.git/contrib/lisp to org.git/lisp in master
>> - git pull
>> - make && make install
> And this is what "make up2" is doing, plus testing so the install won't
> be attempted if the tests don't pass.
>> Are there now two copies of file.el somewhere in the system?
> No, unless you've changed the install location inbetween.  If a file
> would be removed (or renamed), then you'd need to first issue a "make
> clean-install" to make sure it is really gone from your installation.

I'm not sure I follow this one. Does `make up2` look for changed paths
(contrib/lisp vs lisp/) since the last `make up2` ? If not, how would
I know to do `make clean-install` vs. just `make install`?

>> Anyway, if there's more to read on some of your situations, I'd love
>> to know as I've been doing exactly that and want to stop if it's
>> recommended against! Thanks for mentioning the potential risk, as I
>> had no idea!
> I'm not exactly sure what problem you are talking about, maybe you could
> clarify.  In any case it seems there's been a mixup of different problems
> in this thread.

I'm talking about your original comment that running out of a git repo
can lead to:
- it being just to easy to mess up with the autoloads
- have stale byte-compiled files I forgot about somewhere


P.S. And yes, I derailed from the mixed install case due to your
comment as I thought it was worth looking into. I'm doing what you
advise against and I wanted to know the risks and more details about
what I might run into.

> Regards,
> Achim.
> --
> +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
> Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf rackAttack:
> http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds

reply via email to

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