MS Windows.
Kyle Jones wrote:
Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] writes:
> Kyle> What's wrong with configuring with --package-path ? I've been
> Kyle> using that for at least a year. Works fine. Put it into a
> Kyle> script and you never have to type it again.
>
> There's plenty wrong with --package-path: you do that, and you
> hard-compile paths into the executable. It becomes that much harder
> to move the installation around afterwards. (I know: I implemented
> it.)
How much time do people spend moving distributions around?
Contrast this to how many times people start XEmacs up. Who
really cares if paths are hardcoded into the binary? XEmacs can
be rebuilt from scratch (configure, compile, dump, everything) in
about 10 minutes on my laptop, and this laptop is two years old.
I'm looking at the prospect of even path probing at startup time
and I think the priorites seem screwed here. But then I've
always thought this.
--
Ben
In order to save my hands, I am cutting back on my mail. I also write
as succinctly as possible -- please don't be offended. If you send me
mail, you _will_ get a response, but please be patient, especially for
XEmacs-related mail. If you need an immediate response and it is not
apparent in your message, please say so. Thanks for your understanding.
See also
http://www.666.com/ben/typing.html.