GNU bug report logs - #27686
emacs-ess: Not installed in "${output}/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d"

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 27686 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 27686 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Adonay Felipe Nogueira <adfeno <at> openmailbox.org>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: emacs-ess: Not installed in "${output}/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d"
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:20:32 -0300

It seems that Emacs ESS mode isn't installed in the same location as
other packages are.

Also note that emacs-ess doesn't use the Emacs build system. I don't
know if this is indeed the issue (and if we can force it to use such
build system), but I think this is an important note to make.

The user's profile does include the ESS files, but they are scattered in
"${GUIX_PROFILE}/share".

-- 
- [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]]
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre, por isso não uso. Iguais a ele prefiro
  GNU Ring, ou Tox. Quer outras formas de contato? Adicione o vCard
  que está no endereço acima aos teus contatos.
- Pretende me enviar arquivos .doc, .ppt, .cdr, ou .mp3? OK, eu
  aceito, mas não repasso. Entrego apenas em formatos favoráveis ao
  /software/ livre. Favor entrar em contato em caso de dúvida.

Message #8 received at 27686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
To: Adonay Felipe Nogueira <adfeno <at> openmailbox.org>
Cc: 27686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#27686: emacs-ess: Not installed in
 "${output}/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d"
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:52:36 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Adonay Felipe Nogueira (2017-07-13 09:20 -0300) wrote:

> It seems that Emacs ESS mode isn't installed in the same location as
> other packages are.
>
> Also note that emacs-ess doesn't use the Emacs build system. I don't
> know if this is indeed the issue (and if we can force it to use such
> build system), but I think this is an important note to make.

It's not a problem: we just need to install *.el files in
".../share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d/ess" instead of
".../share/emacs/site-lisp/ess" as it is done by default.  The attached
patch should fix it.

A side note: this is one of the reasons why I don't like "guix.d"
sub-directory.  I think it is a useless extra level in the file
hierarchy.  If we used:

  .../share/emacs/site-lisp/<package>

instead of the current choice:

  .../share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d/<package>

there would be no need to adjust 'emacs-ess', 'magit' and probably some
other packages to install *.el in "guix.d".  But this is for another
discussion :-), sorry:

  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-05/msg00241.html

[0001-gnu-emacs-ess-Install-elisp-files-in-guix.d.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #13 received at 27686-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
To: Adonay Felipe Nogueira <adfeno <at> openmailbox.org>
Cc: 27686-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#27686: emacs-ess: Not installed in
 "${output}/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d"
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:34:46 +0300

Alex Kost (2017-07-18 16:52 +0300) wrote:

> Adonay Felipe Nogueira (2017-07-13 09:20 -0300) wrote:
>
>> It seems that Emacs ESS mode isn't installed in the same location as
>> other packages are.
>>
>> Also note that emacs-ess doesn't use the Emacs build system. I don't
>> know if this is indeed the issue (and if we can force it to use such
>> build system), but I think this is an important note to make.
>
> It's not a problem: we just need to install *.el files in
> ".../share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d/ess" instead of
> ".../share/emacs/site-lisp/ess" as it is done by default.  The attached
> patch should fix it.

[...]
> From 2b36a9a5de44d162b39b351c49ec2f35c8cab880 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:44:22 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: emacs-ess: Install elisp files in "guix.d".
>
> Fixes <http://bugs.gnu.org/27686>.
> Reported by Adonay Felipe Nogueira <adfeno <at> openmailbox.org>
>
> * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-ess)[arguments]: Add LISPDIR to make
> flags to install *.el files into "guix.d" sub-directory.

Since there were no other comments, I committed this patch¹.  So ESS
elisp directory should be found in Emacs 'load-path' now.

¹ http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=b1a6a7068401785fbcc1f5e9df677bc57691674f

-- 
Alex

Message #16 received at 27686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Adonay Felipe Nogueira <adfeno <at> hyperbola.info>
To: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 27686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#27686: emacs-ess: Not installed in
 "${output}/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d"
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:38:04 -0300

Indeed, I also wonder if the "guix.d" directory is a good idea to keep
or not.

Thank you very much for the fix too. :)

-- 
- [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]]
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, use o GNU Ring ou o Tox.
- Contato: [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard]]
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.

Message #19 received at 27686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 27686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Adonay Felipe Nogueira <adfeno <at> openmailbox.org>
Subject: Re: bug#27686: emacs-ess: Not installed in
 "${output}/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d"
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:08:03 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Adonay Felipe Nogueira (2017-07-13 09:20 -0300) wrote:
>
> > It seems that Emacs ESS mode isn't installed in the same location as
> > other packages are.
> >
> > Also note that emacs-ess doesn't use the Emacs build system. I don't
> > know if this is indeed the issue (and if we can force it to use such
> > build system), but I think this is an important note to make.
>
> It's not a problem: we just need to install *.el files in
> ".../share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d/ess" instead of
> ".../share/emacs/site-lisp/ess" as it is done by default.  The attached
> patch should fix it.
>
> A side note: this is one of the reasons why I don't like "guix.d"
> sub-directory.  I think it is a useless extra level in the file
> hierarchy.  If we used:
>
>   .../share/emacs/site-lisp/<package>
>

While I agree that packaging elisp files in their own folder is cleaner, it
also introduces some complexity such as the requirement to add some glue
code in the Emacs site-start.el for packages discovery. This mechanism is
only valid when working with a profile; at build time (say, you want to run
tests which depend on other Emacs packages), another hack is required +
manual fiddling.

By contrast, if all of our Emacs packages were laid out flat under the
usual share/emacs/site-lisp/ like it's done on other distributions, we
could simply define the EMACSLOADPATH `search-path' at the Emacs package
definition level, and the rest would be taken care of by Guix native
mechanisms (no hacks required).

IMHO, this would be more "Guixy".

Alternatively, we would need to extend the seacrh-path facility to be able
to deal with our own added complexity. I'm not sure if it's worth it.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #22 received at 27686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 27686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#27686: emacs-ess: Not installed in
 "${output}/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d"
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:32:05 +0300

Maxim Cournoyer (2017-08-15 12:08 -0400) wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>     A side note: this is one of the reasons why I don't like "guix.d"
>     sub-directory.  I think it is a useless extra level in the file
>     hierarchy.  If we used:
>
>       .../share/emacs/site-lisp/<package>
>
> While I agree that packaging elisp files in their own folder is
> cleaner, it also introduces some complexity such as the requirement
> to add some glue code in the Emacs site-start.el for packages
> discovery.
>
> This mechanism is only valid when working with a profile;
> at build time (say, you want to run tests which depend on other Emacs
> packages), another hack is required + manual fiddling.
>
> By contrast, if all of our Emacs packages were laid out flat under
> the usual share/emacs/site-lisp/ like it's done on other
> distributions,

I wonder how many emacs packages these distributions provide and whether
they have any name conflicts in "site-lisp" or not.

> we could simply define the EMACSLOADPATH `search-path'
> at the Emacs package definition level, and the rest would be taken
> care of by Guix native mechanisms (no hacks required).
>
> IMHO, this would be more "Guixy".

The only problem with this flat structure I see is the potential name
conflicts.  Federico (the author of the 'emacs-build-system') explained
it here:

  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-06/msg00398.html

Although emacs-build-system removes such files as README or .gitignore
nowadays, name conflicts are still possible, especially for "complex"
emacs packages that provide additional non-elisp files, often placed in
sub-directories.  For example, 'emacs-slime' provides 'lib' and
'contrib' subdirs.  There may be other packages that have dirs with the
same names, and since there are thousands of Emacs packages out there,
name conflicts are possible in this case.

Otherwise, I agree that flat structure is much easier to use and handle.

> Alternatively, we would need to extend the seacrh-path facility to be
> able to deal with our own added complexity. I'm not sure if it's
> worth it.

-- 
Alex

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.