Hello, zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes:
> Dear Nicolas, > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 16:13, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: >> zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > Somehow, one needs to change the Emacs version used by the Emacs >> > toolchain to bytecompile, right? >> > I do not know if it makes sense, but we could add something like >> > 'package-with-emacs-next' similar to 'package-with-python2' or >> > 'package-with-ocam4.07'. >> > WDYT? >> >> This sounds like serious overhead for a single package. Maybe we could >> try to prevent byte-compilation for the package and see what happens? > > Maybe I miss the issue. From my understanding, all the Emacs packages > are byte-compiled with the current Emacs. Therefore, "guix install > emacs-next emacs-foo" and then "M-x foo" works by luck -- well because > the Emacs VM is stable. :-) That's a good description of the situation. There's no warranty that emacs-something works with emacs-next unless it was packaged to be compiled specifically with emacs-next instead of the default emacs package (currently 26.3). > And I do not know how to rebuild all my Emacs packages using > 'emacs-next' instead of the current Emacs. Maybe I miss something. Some people have been adding emacs-next-something packages (IIRC); I think it's OK for the big, complicated packages that need effort to port, but otherwise I wouldn't like seeing this happening for all packages. > Well, I am not suggesting to duplicate all the Emacs packages with > something like 'emacs-next-<package>' because it is too much. I am > suggesting to provide 'package-with-emacs-next' and then for example > in my manifest file I would use this new procedure to generate > on-the-fly these next packages; as an expert Emacs mode. That sounds like a good idea; provide a way for users to rewrite their package at the level of their manifest file (which is already possible IIUC). > I do not know if this proposal makes sense. Probably not. :-) > (My regular Emacs is the current version and I very rarely use > emacs-next because I started Emacs with 23 therefore 24 was already a > so-nice improvement. :-)) It does make sense. For those who would like to see our base Emacs package be updated to emacs-next, we need to iron out all the packages currently failing to build with it. It is easy to try, by modifying slightly a local Guix checkout: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) guix/build-system/emacs.scm | 2 +- modified guix/build-system/emacs.scm @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ "Return the default Emacs package." ;; Lazily resolve the binding to avoid a circular dependency. (let ((emacs-mod (resolve-interface '(gnu packages emacs)))) - (module-ref emacs-mod 'emacs-minimal))) + (module-ref emacs-mod 'emacs-next))) (define* (lower name #:key source inputs native-inputs outputs system target --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Maxim