"J. Kean Johnston" <jkj(a)sco.com&gt; writes: Please don't use this solution. We all know it's already rather difficult to keep the docs up-to-date, and I think it would be better to use mechanisms as close to the existing ones as possible anyway. IMHO, it's important to put them somewhere else. I hope I have convinced the package-stuff guys to move the packages under an architecture-independant directory, namely under share/. However, lib/ is the place to put object code. OTOH, a new question arises: it's likely that many of those "dynamically loadable packages" will come not only with shared objects, and but with accompanying elisp code too. In that case, should we split the installation under different places, eg share/ and lib/. Personally, I think we can afford replicating the elisp code installation in that case. One other general remark. I like this functionality very much, and I think that in terms of user-interface, this and the current package system should stay really synchronized. In particular, this means envision the problems of loading/unloading, concurrent version management, custom-based installation etc etc. Otherwise, all of this sounds really neat. -- / / _ _ Didier Verna http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/ - / / - / / /_/ / E.N.S.T. INF C201.1 mailto:verna＠inf.enst.fr /_/ / /_/ / /__ / 46 rue Barrault Tel. (33) 01 45 81 73 46 75634 Paris cedex 13 Fax. (33) 01 45 81 31 19