[Bug: 21.4.18] site-lisp not in load-path

[Rodney Sparapani]

Michael Sperber wrote:

>>For packages built entirely by third parties, the following transition
>>strategy is easy to implement and essentially riskless but was vetoed
>>at the brainstorm stage by Mike (and I think Ben) several years ago
>>(and ignored by everybody else).
>>    
>>
>
>I don't remember ever having seen it.  I'm not exactly falling in love
>with it at first sight, but I don't see any reason for vetoing it
>right there.
>
>Could you summarize what problem you're trying to solve here?  I'm a
>little lost.
>  
>
Hi Mike:

Who are you asking that to?  Are you wondering about the original bug report
or Stephen's post?

Thanks,

Rodney