>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen J Turnbull
<stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Stephen> Raymond Toy writes:
> In hindsight, list-load-path-shadows is obvious. Yet, I
don't
> remember anyone suggesting that. :-)
Stephen> It's "obvious", why should it need be suggested? Jokes
Stephen> aside, I'll see what I can do about documentation when I
Stephen> get back from travel.
Well, it could also be that this has happened before, but everyone
else was smart enough to use list-load-path-shadows to figure it out,
and I was just too stupid.
Stephen> Jokes aside, if you have a suggestion about how to avoid
Stephen> this (besides running list-load-path-shadows on every
Stephen> startup which I'll think about but my first take is
Stephen> "obviously too expensive") I'd like to hear is.
Stephen> Remember, at best we have a guess about stuff under
Stephen> $prefix, but AFAICT you don't have dupes under $prefix,
Stephen> and we somehow were unable (despite trying) to determine
Stephen> that $overthere == $prefix, which we can try to do
Stephen> better, but cannot promise to succeed.
In the original case where one was a symlink to the other, xemacs
should have been able to deduce that by chasing the symlink.
In the other case, xemacs by design was looking at both directories so
I guess there's not much that can be done with that other than making
xemacs stop looking there. But that would probably break
installations that use bindir to store the exec in special
subdirectories. (I used to do this with multiple xemacs versions and
sometimes even different archs.)
I think this is a sufficiently rare occurrence that nothing (other
than, perhaps, the symlink chasing above) really needs to be done.
Maybe filing a bug with some steps to figure out what's going would be
enough?
Ray
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta